A procuring agency need not inform an offeror, as part of discussions, that the offeror’s price is higher than those of its competitors. According to a recent ruling of the Court of Federal Claims, the only exception is if the offeror’s price is so high as to preclude award to the offeror–an “unreasonable” price, in FAR parlance.
The Court’s decision in Lyon Shipyard, Inc. v. The United States (Nov. 27, 2013) comes on the heels of a recent GAO decision reaching a similar result.
A bid bond containing an erroneous “not to exceed” limit of less than the 20 percent required by the solicitation was defective, and was properly rejected by the procuring agency.
The GAO’s recent bid protest decision in IMR Development Corporation, B-408585 (Nov. 13, 2013) is a reminder that when a bid guarantee is required, a contractor must ensure that the bid bond meets the government’s requirements.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General has concluded that the agency’s mentor-protege program requires improvements to maximize benefits for eligible small business proteges.
In a new audit report, the DOE OIG states that it discovered various weaknesses in DOE’s management of its mentor-protege program, including allowing graduated firms to participate as proteges for a second time.
How many times have you forgotten to include an attachment in an email? For many of us, it is not an uncommon occurrence.
In the case of one unfortunate contractor, a forgotten email attachment led to the rejection of its proposal–and the GAO upheld the agency’s decision.
Perhaps no single aspect of federal government contracting causes more confusion than the fact that the government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.
The current system can lead to inconsistent results, such as a company being a “SDVOSB” for purposes of VA contracts, but not those issued by other agencies (or vice versa). As SmallGovCon readers know, I am on record as stating that the “two SDVOSB programs” approach is idiotic and ought to be scrapped. (Okay, maybe I wasn’t on record with the word “idiotic” before. I guess I am now.)
But while I cross my fingers and hope that Congress will simplify things, SDVOSBs are stuck with the current system. And, as a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals case demonstrates, SDVOSBs should be aware of the important differences between the two SDVOSB programs.
The government contracting world has been buzzing about a two-part series published in the Washington Post last week. The first story in the series questioned whether MicroTech violated the SBA’s affiliation and 8(a) Program rules. The second piece examined a SDVOSB’s relationship with MicroTech. Now, the Post reports that two House committees are digging into the allegations.
MicroTech has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, and could yet be vindicated. However, the Post stories have some small contractors nervous that they might be inadvertently violating the complex SBA size, affiliation, and/or socioeconomic regulations.
If the Washington Post stories struck a nerve, it’s a good time to consider an internal compliance audit. I assist companies with thorough internal reviews of potential size and affiliation problems, as well as compliance audits under the 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, and WOSB programs. Contact me for a confidential introductory discussion about my small business compliance review services.
“Bundling” under the FAR is often misunderstood. One common misconception is that any time an agency consolidates requirements from multiple contracts into a single contract unsuitable for small businesses, the consolidation is impermissible “bundling” unless the consolidated contract cannot be broken down into smaller requirements.
Unfortunately for small businesses, the FAR’s definition of bundling is not so broad. For example, as demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, a consolidation of requirements being performed by large businesses likely will not qualify as impermissible bundling.