A GSA Schedule solicitation restricted to a particular brand item was improper because the procuring agency failed to properly justify the restriction, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
The GAO’s decision is an important reminder that “brand name only” restrictions are disfavored and that procuring agencies bear the burden of reasonably justifying such restrictions–even when they buy off the GSA Schedule.
Today, Congressman Mike Coffman introduced the Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act of 2013.
The bill would standardize the requirements for SDVOSB eligibility, eliminating the current differences between the SBA’s and VA’s regulations. In addition, the bill would transfer responsibility for verifying SDVOSB status to the SBA (the VA would retain authority for determining whether an individual is a service-disabled veteran).
Hardy Stone’s website, VetLikeMe, has a more detailed summary of the bill. I will be closely tracking this legislation and will post updates if and when it moves forward.
A bidder on a government contract opportunity may rely on the past performance of an affiliated company–but only when the bidder’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate will be provided or relied upon for contract performance.
This rule was recently at issue in a GAO bid protest decision, in which the GAO held that the agency improperly credited a joint venture with the past performance of affiliated companies, even though the joint venture’s proposal did not indicate that those companies would play a role in contract performance.
Recently, I brought you the story of a contractor protesting its own award.
Now, in the same “strange but true” category comes a GAO bid protest decision in which a small business argued that the procuring agency should not have set aside the procurement for small businesses.
A participant in the SBA’s 8(a) Program was appropriately terminated because the company’s disadvantaged owner took another full-time job without the SBA’s permission.
The recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision upholding the termination is an important reminder of the limitations on outside employment for 8(a) owners–as well as a reminder of the importance to 8(a) firms of ongoing honesty and forthrightness with the SBA.
SBA 8(a) participants need not obtain the SBA’s prior approval of prime/subcontractor teaming agreements, according to an SBA statement made in a GAO bid protest case.
The SBA’s position makes sense, because the SBA’s regulations only call for prior approval of joint venture agreements. However, one former 8(a) company might be hopping mad over the SBA’s stated position, because that company was terminated from the 8(a) program for–you guessed it–failing to obtain the SBA’s prior approval of a teaming agreement.
A SDVOSB joint venture was not eligible for award of a SDVOB set-aside contract because its joint venture agreement called for certain decisions to be made by supermajority vote.
As explained by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in its decision finding the SDVOSB joint venture ineligible, the supermajority provision undermined the regulatory requirement that a SDVOSB joint venture be managed by an eligible SDVOSB.