GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
Bid protests are an important part of the federal government’s procurement system. Why? Because sometimes agencies really get the evaluation wrong. They read non-existent requirements into the solicitation; give credit where none is due; and adjust an offeror’s price without forewarning.
Thankfully, in those cases, we have GAO to make course corrections.
Continue readingNegotiating with the federal government regarding pricing can sometimes feel like trying to win an RV from Bob Barker. Such was the experience of one protester. The government recommended a price increase during discussions and the contractor raised its price. The price increase, however, ultimately cost the offeror the award.
The agency’s conduct was subsequently protested before GAO, but GAO was not receptive.
Continue readingIn a recent protest, GAO examined the rules for price evaluation and source selection methodology required under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Program. At a minimum, an agency must perform price comparisons to evaluate what vendor will be lowest cost along with any additional features and benefits to the government. Because the FSS solicitation at issue failed to include proper price evaluation terms, GAO sustained a challenge to those terms.
Continue readingMuch like schoolyard basketball, bid protests feature a “no harm, no foul” rule: unless an offeror can credibly allege that it was prejudiced by a flawed evaluation, GAO won’t sustain a protest.
Establishing prejudice can be tricky, depending on the type of evaluation at issue. Under a lowest-price technically acceptable award, a protester generally must show that it was next-in-line for the award (that is, it was technically acceptable and had the next-lowest price, after the awardee). Best value awards, on the other hand, are a bit more flexible: usually, the protester must establish that the evaluation flaw adversely affected its competitive standing.
A recent GAO decision, however, highlights that these two means of establishing prejudice aren’t always distinct.
Continue readingIf you are a Federal Supply Schedule contract holder competing for a BPA, then there’s an important principle that you should bear in mind: your underlying FSS contract should cover the entire anticipated duration of the blanket purchase agreement, including all option years.
And don’t try to provide this coverage with two different FSS contracts. That will get you into trouble–as one unfortunate contractor recently found out.
Continue readingSolicitations are intended to provide contractors with sufficient information about an agency’s needs to compete intelligently for government awards. In a recent procurement for special operations forces training facilities, one bidder alleged the solicitation provided so little detail that the solicited site “might just as well be a thrown-together paintball site for teenage birthday parties.”
Clearly in no mood to party, GAO denied the protest, taking the agency at its word that its requirements were minimal.
Continue readingGAO recently sustained a challenge to an agency’s award decision where the awardee failed to provide a required letter of commitment for an individual proposed for a key personnel position. GAO said that the awardee failed to satisfy a material solicitation requirement, making the agency’s award improper.
Continue reading