Author Archives: Steven Koprince

Event: Small Business Teaming Success Workshop

Posted on by

If you are interested in small business teaming, and located in the Pacific Northwest (or plan to be), please join me and other presenters on May 3, 2013 for a free all-day workshop designed to give small contractors an in-depth look at teaming, joint venturing and subcontracting on federal procurements.

I will offer two sessions during the workshop: “Legal Aspects of Teaming and Government Contracting” and “Compliant and Effective Teaming Documents.”  Other sessions will include “Introduction to Teaming,” “To Bid or Not To Bid,” and “Proposal Writing in the Teaming Environment.”

The workshop will be held in Oregon City, Oregon (near Portland) and is sponsored by two great organizations, Powering Up! Small Business Teams and the Clackamas Small  Business Development Center. Visit the workshop’s registration page to sign up.  I hope to see you there!

GAO: Agency Discussions Need Not Include “New” Weakness

Posted on by

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency did not fail to provide an offeror with meaningful discussions about an evaluated weakness in the offeror’s staffing approach because the aspect of the staffing plan deemed to be a weakness was introduced in the offeror’s final proposal revision, or FPR.

Continue reading →

DFARS Clause Problem Costs Contractor $288K

Posted on by

A contractor’s failure to follow the requirements of DFARS 252.232-7007 (Limitation of Government’s Obligation), also known as the “LOGO” clause, resulted in the contractor performing more than $288,000 in free work for the government.

The contractor’s dilemma is an important reminder to be aware of–and scrupulously comply with–the LOGO clause and similar FAR clauses.

Continue reading →

Groundhog Day is Here: SBA OHA Shoots Down Another 8(a) Program Rejection

Posted on by

In the 1990s comedy Groundhog Day, Bill Murray played a weatherman who found himself living the same day over and over again.  I am having the same feeling reading SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals cases these days (yes, this is what qualifies as my reading material of choice; don’t judge).

As it has at least five other times since December, SBA OHA has shot down the SBA’s rejection of an 8(a) application under the “social disadvantage” factor.  As was the case in several other recent decisions, the latest volley from SBA OHA states that the SBA failed to properly consider the evidence and explain its rationale for denying an 8(a) applicant.

Continue reading →

Mentor-Protege Program Fraud: Contractor Agrees to $1.15 Million Settlement

Posted on by

An Alabama-based construction company has agreed to pay more than a million dollars to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by fraudulently representing that it was mentoring a minority-owned small business under the Department of Defense’s mentor-protege program.

The settlement puts to rest the Justice Department’s False Claims Act contention that the contractor used its so-called “protege” as little more than a pass-through entity and failed to provide real mentoring services to the small business.

Continue reading →

HUBZone Certification Not Required At Solicitation Issuance, Says GAO

Posted on by

A Treasury Department solicitation did not require contractors to be certified HUBZone participants at the time the solicitation was issued, despite language in the solicitation arguably requiring just that in order to receive a high rating for socioeconomic status.

In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency properly interpreted the solicitation to require HUBZone certification at the time proposals were due, not the time the solicitation was issued.  The GAO’s ruling comports with the HUBZone program regulations, which do not require contractors to be certified at the time a solicitation is issued in order to be considered HUBZone participants for purposes of that solicitation.

Continue reading →

Contractor Misses Solicitation’s Past Performance Requirement; Gets High Score Anyway

Posted on by

A contractor was awarded an “Excellent” past performance score despite submitting only three past performance references, not the five past performance references required by the solicitation.

Although one might think that a contractor would be penalized for failing to satisfy such a requirement, the GAO held that the procuring agency properly gave the contractor in question a high past performance score, based on the three submitted references and past performance information obtained from other sources.

Continue reading →