GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
In a solicitation seeking the award of a follow-on services contract, a procuring agency could validly disclose the number of incumbent personnel performing a particular function.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that this information was not proprietary or confidential to the incumbent, and that the incumbent was not competitively harmed by the release of the information.
The GAO is proposing a major overhaul of its bid protest filing system.
In a Federal Register notice published today, the GAO proposes significant changes regarding how protests are filed (get ready for filing fees), the timeliness of bid protests, and much more.
A woman-owned firm’s introduction of generalized evidence of discrimination against women in the fields of architecture and engineering was insufficient to demonstrate that the Navy discriminated against the woman-owned business with respect to a particular federal opportunity.
A recent GAO bid protest decision highlights how difficult it is to successfully demonstrate bias by government officials–even in a case where statistical evidence suggests that bias may be prevalent in a specific industry.
The GAO ruled recently that an awardee under a multiple-award IDIQ contract did not have standing the protest the agency’s selection of another awardee.
The decision highlights one of the main tenets of government contracting law: competition is in the government’s interest, and a protest that seeks to reduce competition to the benefit of the protestor could, in a case like this, be thrown out.
A protester’s failure to timely file its bid protest at GAO is almost always certain to lead to the dismissal of its protest. But knowing when the clock starts running for an offeror to file its protest isn’t always clear.
This uncertainty recently tripped up a would-be protester seeking to challenge its exclusion from the competitive range—because that offeror failed to request a pre-award debriefing, its attempt to protest its exclusion following the award and a post-award debriefing was untimely.
Good news for veteran-owned contractors: the VA’s SDVOSB and VOSB “Rule of Two” applies even when the VA issues a solicitation for a multiple-award IDIQ contract.
A recent GAO decision represents the latest instance where the VA’s failure to apply the Rule of Two and set-aside a procurement for SDVOSBs has been found to be unreasonable. In Spur Design, LLC, B-412245.3 (Feb. 24, 2016)*, GAO determined that the Rule of Two required the VA to set-aside a solicitation to award several multiple award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contracts for SDVOSBs.
Where an agency buys manufactured goods, the FAR’s Rule of Two is satisfied when two or small business manufacturers of the end products exist. It is not enough, as GAO recently held, for two or more small business distributors of manufactured products to exist.