GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
An offeror was not entitled to a high past performance score merely because it proposed a subcontracting relationship with the incumbent prime contractor.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency had properly assigned the offeror a mere “Satisfactory” past performance score, despite a subcontracting relationship with the incumbent, because the prospective prime contractor had not sufficiently demonstrated its own relevant past performance.
When a procuring agency knows of an apparent organizational conflict of interest, but makes no effort to resolve the issue, the resulting award is improper.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, GAO held that it is impermissible for an agency to simply ignore a known conflict (or apparent conflict). Interestingly, GAO never determined whether the conflict helped or hurt the business’s efforts at winning the award. It said essentially that it did not matter. Because a conflict existed, the agency knew about it, and did nothing, the award was flawed.
GAO bid protests were up 3% in Fiscal Year 2015–and protesters achieved a favorable outcome in 45% of cases.
In its Annual Report to Congress on its bid protest function, the GAO provided a look at how protesters fared during FY 2015, as well as the most common reasons protests were sustained.
In a recent decision, the GAO played seventh-grade English teacher, reminding offerors to use their own words to get full proposal-writing credit.
In the case of Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Oct. 16, 2015), the agency found a proposal unacceptable because, in its view, the offeror had simply restated the terms of the solicitation. The GAO agreed with the agency’s decision, writing that a proposal that merely restates the requirements of the solicitation without adding detail and insight into how the offeror would manage and execute the contract can be found unacceptable.
GAO’s filing deadlines are strict, and a protest that does not abide by them generally will be dismissed. In All Native, Inc., B-411693 et al. (Oct. 5, 2015), the GAO expanded upon this rule by dismissing a protest where the protester missed a filing deadline by a single day. In doing so, the GAO refused to extend the deadline merely because the GAO’s email setting that deadline apparently ended up in the protester’s “spam” email folder.
An agency may not procure new services under an existing GSA Schedule delivery order if the new services exceed scope of the original delivery order.
In a recent decision, Onix Networking Corp., B-411841 (Nov. 9, 2015), the GAO sustained a protest where the agency acquired a new type of software by modifying an existing delivery order for software license extensions because the acquisition exceeded the scope of the initial delivery order. According to the GAO, the out-of-scope modification amounted to an improper sole source contract.
A procuring agency acted improperly by allowing bidders a mere 15 hours to respond to an amended Invitation for Bids–especially given that most of those 15 hours were outside of ordinary working times.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO sustained an offeror’s protest of the 15-hour deadline, holding that the procuring agency had acted improperly by failing to give prospective bidders a reasonable time to prepare and submit amended bids.