A company’s blanket purchase agreement with the U.S. Forest Service was not a “contract,” meaning that the company had no ability to file a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for an alleged improper termination of the BPA.
In dismissing the complaint on technical grounds, the Court’s message to the terminated company was, in essence, “tough luck.”
When designating the NAICS code for a solicitation, the procuring agency should not consider which NAICS code will help increase competition and decrease the risks of unsuccessful performance.
According to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, these factors should play no bearing on an agency’s NAICS code designation. Instead, in most cases, the agency must select the NAICS code that best describes the principal purpose of the product or service being acquired.
A Contracting Officer must designate the NAICS code which best describes the principal purpose of the product or service being acquired, right?
Not always. As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, when it comes to picking a NAICS code for a GSA Schedule task order, a Contracting Officer’s choices can be quite limited–and the “best” NAICS code might not be chosen.
In a recent case, a federal court held that a procuring agency properly downgraded an offeror’s proposal because the proposal was ambiguous as to how much of the contract work the offeror intended to subcontract.
According to the Court, even though the amount to be subcontracted was small in any event, the ambiguity meant that the procuring agency reasonably questioned whether the offeror understood the requirements of the solicitation.
An Idaho contractor has been indicted on federal charges stemming from allegations that she fraudulently lowered her personal net worth in order to enable her company to be certified in the SBA 8(a) Program and the Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the 8(a) and DBE fraud netted the contractor upwards of $9 million–and the Government wants its money back.
A contractor was recently terminated from the SBA’s 8(a) Program for failing to comply with the subcontracting limits applicable to its 8(a) contracts.
The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the termination, writing that the SBA had properly terminated the 8(a) contractor for “willfully violating SBA regulations.” SBA OHA rejected the contractor’s argument that it was exempt from the subcontracting limits under the so-called non-manufacturer rule.
A Florida resident has pleaded guilty in an 8(a) Program fraud case that seemingly has it all in terms of small business violations, from affiliation to subcontracting limits.
According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Michael Dunkel has pleaded guilty on charges of major government fraud, and faces the potential of significant prison time when sentencing occurs this fall.