GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
I often caution would-be bid protesters that when it comes to “best value” procurements, the GAO gives agencies wide discretion to pay a price premium for a proposal evaluated as superior.
Case in point: a recent bid protest decision in which the GAO upheld the procuring agency’s decision to pay a whopping 72.6% price premium.
A SDVOSB was improperly downgraded for not identifying its subcontractors in its proposal, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Coburn Contractors, LLC, B-408279.2 (Sept. 30, 2013), the GAO held that the VA improperly applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring that the protester identify its subcontractors, because according to the solicitation, a subcontractor list was only required at the task order level.
A procuring agency appropriately considered the size of offerors’ past performance projects in evaluating proposals, even though project size was not expressly stated as an evaluation factor.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, contractors should assume that project size may be considered whenever past performance is evaluated, because size bears on the relevancy of a past performance project.
The GAO has upheld an agency’s award of a contract to a firm owned by a current Government employee.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO ruled that the Contracting Officer did not “knowingly” make the award in violation of the FAR because he was not aware of the owner’s employment status. The GAO’s decision begs the question: with contractors required to submit so many representations and certifications, why is it permissible for a contractor to withhold the fact that it is owned or controlled by a current government employee?
Unbalanced pricing can justify the exclusion of a contractor’s proposal, even if the contractor alleges that the pricing represents its actual cost structure.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, an agency is justified in rejecting a proposal on the basis of unbalanced pricing when the agency reasonably concludes that the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the government.
The GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction does not extend to complaints that a government agency has violated a company’s intellectual property rights.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO lacks jurisdiction over intellectual property matters, and affected companies must seek relief in the federal courts.
Small business set-asides are not required for simplified acquisitions conducted outside the United States and its outlying areas, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Latvian Connection General Trading and Construction LLC, B-408633 (Sept. 18, 2013), the GAO rejected the protester’s contention–which was backed by the SBA–that simplified acquisitions must be set-aside whenever the “rule of two” is satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the procurement is outside the United States.