I was on the road during the latter half of last week–first a stop in Columbia, Missouri for a workshop with the Missouri PTAC, and then on to the greater Chicago area, where I gave a presentation at a procurement conference. My travels prevented me from getting SmallGovCon Week In Review posted on its usual Friday date, so here is a special Monday morning edition of government contracting news and commentary.
Author Archives: Steven Koprince
Thank You, Illinois!
I am back in Lawrence after a trip to the greater Chicago area, where I spoke at The Next Level: Federal Contracting conference.
The conference was a great chance for experienced federal contractors to avoid beginning level seminars (“how to register in SAM” and so forth) and concentrate on information designed to help them take their government contracting businesses to the next level. I was honored to be part of an all-star roster of speakers, including Tom Johnson and Alice Lipowicz of Set-Aside Alert, Richard Hernandez of e-MBE.net, and Jamie Bratten of EZGovOpps. My presentation focused on the SBA’s proposed new “universal” mentor-protege program.
Many thanks to Rita Haake and Amber Gardner of the Illinois PTAC at the College of DuPage for putting on this conference and inviting me to speak. A big “thank you,” as well, to all of the contractors and industry professionals who attended the event, asked great questions, and seem poised to take full advantage of the new mentor-protege program.
Pass/Fail Past Performance Evaluation: No Comparison Required
Where a solicitation contemplated a “pass/fail” evaluation of past performance, and stated that an offeror without relevant past performance would nonetheless be rated “Acceptable,” there was no basis for the agency to compare the relative quality or amount of offerors’ past performance.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the procuring agency properly refused to give the protester credit for its allegedly superior past performance because the pass/fail evaluation scheme did not allow for such a comparative evaluation.
SmallGovCon Week In Review: July 13 – 17, 2015
After doubling up the Week In Review last Friday, we are back to our regular one-per-week format. Today, SmallGovCon Week In Review features stories about the GAO’s hard-hitting report on the Buy Indian program, a lengthy prison sentence for bribery of a VA official, the beginning of the fourth quarter “spending season,” and much more.
Government’s Engineers Couldn’t Modify Contract, Says ASBCA
A construction contractor was unable to recover the costs of performing changed work allegedly ordered by the government’s project engineers because the engineers did not have authority to modify the contract.
As demonstrated in a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision, only a contracting officer or the contracting officer’s designated representatives may modify a contract, and a contractor bears the risk of non-payment by performing changed work directed by an unauthorized government employee.
Buy Indian Act: Implementation Needs Improvement, Says GAO
The implementation of the Buy Indian Act set-aside program suffers from inconsistencies and uncertainties–including the fundamental question of whether Buy Indian Act set-asides are to be prioritized over other set-aside contracts.
In a recent report on the Buy Indian Act, the GAO uncovered a disturbing lack of effective oversight and implementation, and made several recommendations to enable the government to maximize the effectiveness of the Buy Indian Act.
Small Business “Rule Of Two” Doesn’t Apply To GSA Schedule
Agencies are not required to investigate the availability of small business offerors when ordering goods and services off the Federal Supply Schedule, even if multiple small business concerns would be able to compete for the contract.
As the GAO recently held in Walker Development & Trading Group, B-411357 (July 8, 2015), the small business preferences found in the Small Business Act do not apply when an agency uses the FSS.