A procuring agency appropriately considered the size of offerors’ past performance projects in evaluating proposals, even though project size was not expressly stated as an evaluation factor.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, contractors should assume that project size may be considered whenever past performance is evaluated, because size bears on the relevancy of a past performance project.
The shutdown is finally over, and government contractors are getting back to work.
In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, there are no “shutdown is over” stories, because you already know about that. Instead, the Review offers some news and commentary that may have slipped under your radar screen, including post-shutdown contracting, the next step in the strategic sourcing initiative, a preview of some key federal opportunities on the horizon for 2014, and an interesting look at how government contracting data has spawned its own niche businesses.
The GAO has upheld an agency’s award of a contract to a firm owned by a current Government employee.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO ruled that the Contracting Officer did not “knowingly” make the award in violation of the FAR because he was not aware of the owner’s employment status. The GAO’s decision begs the question: with contractors required to submit so many representations and certifications, why is it permissible for a contractor to withhold the fact that it is owned or controlled by a current government employee?
Unbalanced pricing can justify the exclusion of a contractor’s proposal, even if the contractor alleges that the pricing represents its actual cost structure.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, an agency is justified in rejecting a proposal on the basis of unbalanced pricing when the agency reasonably concludes that the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the government.
As the shutdown marches on, many contractors are beginning to feel the effects, in the form of suspension notices, unanswered calls to agency officials, and concerns about delays in processing payments, claims, protests, and more.
In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, more on the effects of the shutdown on small contractors, as well as some “non-shutdown” news and commentary you may have missed.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task-order competition under a government-wide acquisition contract.
In MORI Associates, Inc., No. 13-671C (2013), the Court held that it lacked authority to consider whether an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task order competition under a GWAC–rather than under the GSA Schedule–was improper.
A procuring agency erred by failing to seek clarification of an obvious clerical error in a small business’s proposal, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc., No. 13-378C (2013), the Court held that although procuring agencies have discretion as to whether to clarify clerical mistakes, that discretion is not unlimited–and that failing to clarify an obvious mistake may be an abuse of discretion. It’s a ruling that should be cheered by small government contractors.