GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
A discrepancy in a business’s subcontracting plan may have cost the offeror its shot at a position on the enterprise acquisition gateway for leading-edge solutions II IDIQ contract.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest, the business was downgraded on the small business participation factor because of a discrepancy in its proposal regarding subcontracting with SDVOSBs. Without the discrepancy, the large business might have landed a slot on EAGLE II.
When a procuring agency re-evaluates proposals in response to a protest, the agency need not stick with the results of the original evaluation.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, when an agency re-evaluates proposals, it is expected that the re-evaluation could result in different findings and conclusions–including new conclusions that are not favorable to the protester.
A small business’s expression of interest in a solicitation came too late to affect the agency’s set-aside decision under the so-called “rule of two,” even though there was no indication that the small business knew about the requirement early enough to affect the set-aside decision.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency was not required to consider a small business’s expression of interest when that expression of interest occurred after the RFQ was released. Although the GAO may have been correct as a matter of law, the result is still discouraging, because nothing in the GAO’s decision indicated that the small business knew (or should have known) of the requirement before the agency issued the RFQ.
A joint venture may be awarded an 8(a) set-aside contract so long as the SBA approves the joint venture before award.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, a procuring agency rejected a joint venture’s proposal for an 8(a) set-aside contract because the joint venture had not been approved by the SBA as of the date of proposal submission. The GAO–relying in part on input from the SBA–held that the rejection was improper.
Under the FAR’s limitations on subcontracting clause, the work to be performed by a 1099 independent contractor did not count toward the prime contractor’s performance.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that a procuring agency properly rejected an offeror’s proposal because the offeror was relying, in part, on an independent contractor to meet its obligations under the limitations on subcontracting clause.
In a victory for common sense, the GAO has held that a proposal that was in the agency’s possession before the due date was not “late,” even though the offeror emailed the proposal to the agency instead of submitting it through an online portal.
The agency’s attempt to reject the proposal was particularly egregious because the agency told the protester that the proposal could be submitted by email–then rejected the proposal when the protester did just that.
The Army did not violate the Competition in Contracting Act by soliciting only three local sources for a simplified acquisition to be performed outside of the United States.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO explained that under the circumstances, the Army was not required to publish notice of the procurement on the FedBizOpps website, and satisfied the competition requirements by seeking quotations from three local sources.