GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
An awardee’s low price, by itself, is not evidence that the awardee cannot meet the solicitation’s technical requirements, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Midwest Tube Fabricators, Inc., B-407166, B-407167 (Nov. 20, 2012), the protester argued that the awardee could not meet the solicitation’s requirements at the awarded price. The GAO dismissed the protest, holding that the protester’s allegation did not present a valid basis of protest.
A contractor’s proposal may be rejected for failing to address a requirement contained in a question-and-answer document, so long as the Q&A contains all of the essential elements of a solicitation amendment.
This was the ruling of the GAO in a recent bid protest decision, Energy Engineering & Consulting Services, LLC, B-407352 (Dec. 21, 2012), in which an offeror’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to address a standard imposed in a Q&A.
A contractor bidding on a U.S. Department of State contract was improperly downgraded for failing to possess direct experience working with DOS, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
The GAO’s decision in Exelis Systems Corporation, B-407111; B-407111.2; B-407111.3; B-407111.4 (Nov. 13, 2012) is notable because it is not unusual for procuring agencies to consider agency-specific experience as part of a past performance and/or experience evaluation. According to Exelis Systems Corporation, such considerations may be deemed improper, unless they are spelled out in (or can be reasonably inferred from) the solicitation.
Well, that was fast.
A little more than two weeks after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the VA need not consider service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-asides before procuring goods and services using the Federal Supply Schedule, the GAO has ended its long-running dispute with the VA over the same issue.
The GAO’s decision, in a case also involving Kingdomware Technologies, puts a sudden end to a series of GAO cases (known by many as the Aldevra cases) holding that the VA has been acting contrary to the law by failing to consider SDVOSB set-asides before using the Schedule.
Check your bid bonds, then check them again–especially if you are bidding on multiple procurements at the same time.
That’s the lesson to be learned from a recent GAO bid protest decision, in which a contractor’s bid was rejected because its bid bond referenced the wrong solicitation number and bid opening date. Reading between the lines, it seems that a simple mistake occurred, confusing the solicitation with another procurement. But assuming that to be the case, the simple mistake (and the contractor’s failure to catch it) cost the contractor an award.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs properly limited its SDVOSB market research to firms located in the geographic area where the contract would be performed, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In an era in which many contractors bid on procurements nationally, the GAO’s rationale is debatable–but should serve as a reminder that SDVOSBs cannot take VA set-asides for granted, even when the VA does not use the Federal Supply Schedule.
“What a Difference a Day Makes,” goes the classic song.
For one contractor, a day–or rather, two days–made a big difference in its proposal evaluation. Although the solicitation called for offerors to save laboratory specimens for 7 days, the offeror’s proposal stated that it saves specimens “5-7 days.” Not surprisingly, the GAO found that the procuring agency properly assigned the offeror a weakness.