GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
The GAO lacked jurisdiction to consider the protest of a “bridge” task order valued under $10 million, even though the original order related to the bridge exceeded the $10 million threshold.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that it had no legal basis to consider the value of the original order in determining whether it had jurisdiction to decide a protest related to a bridge order.
Contrary to a common misconception, a contractor need not list the solicitation’s NAICS code in its SAM profile in order to qualify for contract award.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that the government may award a contract to a small business even if the awardee does not list the solicitation’s NAICS code in its SAM profile.
When a Contracting Officer determines that subcontracting possibilities will exist under a qualifying unrestricted contract, subcontracting plans are required from all offerors other than small businesses–including entities that do not intend to issue any subcontracts.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO rejected a protester’s argument that the subcontracting plan requirement is to be determined on an “offeror by offeror” basis, and held that the requirement to provide a subcontracting plan is broadly applied.
For a member of a joint venture to file a GAO bid protest on behalf of the joint venture, the member must have the authority to do so. If a JV Member’s authority to act is in question, the GAO will dismiss the protest for lack of standing.
In a recent decision, the GAO dismissed a bid protest filed by a joint venture member because the other joint venture member disputed the protester’s right to act on the joint venture’s behalf.
A procuring agency erred by essentially assigning a small business a failing past performance score without referring the matter to the SBA.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the assignment of a failing past performance score under a past/fail system constituted a non-responsibility determination–and that the SBA was entitled to review the agency’s determination under the SBA’s Certificate of Competency procedures.
Even if a proposal arrives in a government mailroom by the submittal deadline, the proposal is nevertheless “late” if it does not reach the location specified in the solicitation by the designated time.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO reaffirmed long-standing precedent that “receipt of a bid or proposal at a mailroom or other receiving area does not constitute receipt at the location specified in the RFP, provided the agency has established reasonable procedures to ensure that mailed bids or proposals are routed from the mailroom to the location designated in a solicitation for receipt.”
When issuing task order solicitations under unrestricted multiple award contracts, procuring agencies are not required to apply the so-called “rule of two” and set aside task orders for small businesses.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO–over the objections of the SBA–held that agencies “may,” but need not, set aside task orders under multiple-award contracts. The GAO’s decision essentially overturns a 2008 decision in which the GAO held that the rule of two does require agencies to set aside task orders.