Category Archives: GAO Bid Protests

GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.

GAO: Protest of Exclusion From Competitive Range Untimely After Award

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

GAO: VA’s Rule of Two Applies to Multiple-Award IDIQs

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

GAO: Rule of Two Not Satisfied Where Businesses Do Not Manufacture Products

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

GAO: No Protest Under Omitted FAR Clause

Posted on by

A would-be protester had no valid basis to allege agency wrongdoing when the protester’s allegation was that the awardee would violate a FAR performance of work clause–but the clause was not included in the solicitation.

In a recent decision, the GAO held (unsurprisingly), that a protester could not challenge the awardee’s supposed failure to comply with FAR 52.236-1 because the clause was omitted from the solicitation.

Continue reading →

GAO: On Unrestricted Solictitation, No Extra Credit For Small Business Status

Posted on by

An offeror on an unrestricted solicitation was not entitled to “extra credit” in the evaluation on account of its small business status.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency, during its evaluation of proposals under an unrestricted solicitation, had no obligation award extra credit to the protester just because the protester was a small business.  In its decision, the GAO rejected the protester’s argument that a FAR clause establishing a policy of maximizing small business participation required the agency to give an evaluation preference to a prospective small business prime contractor.

Continue reading →

GAO: Agency Reasonably Adjusted Sub’s Unsubstantiated Costs

Posted on by

Under a solicitation for a cost-reimbursable contract, an offeror’s proposed costs are not controlling, because the government is on the hook for the contractor’s actual and allowable incurred costs. Before making an award decision, the government must consider whether the proposed costs should be upwardly adjusted.

A recent GAO bid protest decision highlights the need for offerors bidding on cost-reimbursable work to make sure that their proposed costs are realistic and substantiated—including the proposed costs of major subcontractors.

Continue reading →

Bare-Bones Organizational Chart Sinks Proposal

Posted on by

When a procuring agency asks for details, an offeror better provide those details–or run the risk of exclusion from the competition.

Recently, the GAO has confirmed that offerors must provide sufficient detail or run the risk of being eliminated from a competition. First, came Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 16, 2015), where GAO held that an agency can find a proposal technically unacceptable when it essentially parrots the terms of the solicitation. Now comes LOTOS S.r.l., B-411717.5 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 19, 2015), where GAO found that the agency had reasonably excluded an offeror from the competition based in part on the offeror’s failure to provide a detailed organizational chart.

Continue reading →