Category Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Agency Erred By Not Clarifying Clerical Error, Says Federal Court

Posted on by

A procuring agency erred by failing to seek clarification of an obvious clerical error in a small business’s proposal, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc., No. 13-378C (2013), the Court held that although procuring agencies have discretion as to whether to clarify clerical mistakes, that discretion is not unlimited–and that failing to clarify an obvious mistake may be an abuse of discretion.  It’s a ruling that should be cheered by small government contractors.

Continue reading →

SmallGovCon Week in Review: September 16-20, 2013

Posted on by

In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, the American Legion asks an appellate court to overturn the infamous Kingdomware SDVOSB decision, the Office of Management and Budget prepares for a potential government shutdown, a blogger writes that despite new rules, small subcontractors may be mistreated by large primes, and much more.

Continue reading →

Strange, But True: Contractor Protests Its Own Award

Posted on by

Here’s one you don’t see every day: a contractor, complaining that the government was unfairly holding it to outdated pricing, attempted to protest its own award.

No dice, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the protest on jurisdictional grounds.

Continue reading →

BPAs Are Not Contracts–So “Tough Luck” For Terminated BPA Holder

Posted on by

A company’s blanket purchase agreement with the U.S. Forest Service was not a “contract,” meaning that the company had no ability to file a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for an alleged improper termination of the BPA.

In dismissing the complaint on technical grounds, the Court’s message to the terminated company was, in essence, “tough luck.”

Continue reading →

Subcontracting Ambiguity Results in Proposal Downgrade

Posted on by

In a recent case, a federal court held that a procuring agency properly downgraded an offeror’s proposal because the proposal was ambiguous as to how much of the contract work the offeror intended to subcontract.

According to the Court, even though the amount to be subcontracted was small in any event, the ambiguity meant that the procuring agency reasonably questioned whether the offeror understood the requirements of the solicitation.

Continue reading →

Federal Court: Small Business Set-Aside Threshold “Purposefully Low”

Posted on by

The FAR’s threshold for meeting the so-called “Rule of Two” for small business set-asides is “purposefully low,” according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In Adams & Associates, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-731C (2013), the Court rejected a challenge to a small business set-aside, holding in part that a contracting officer need not conduct a thorough responsibility evaluation of prospective small business offerors before issuing a set-aside.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Enjoins Contract Award Pending SBA OHA Size Appeal

Posted on by

If a contractor ends up on the losing end of a SBA size protest, the contractor has the right to appeal to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.  The problem is that SBA OHA size appeals can take months.  A contracting officer may be unwilling to wait, and simply award the contract to the next company in line.

Neither the FAR nor the SBA’s regulations require the contracting officer to suspend award or performance pending SBA OHA’s decision.  However, as a recent case demonstrates, if the SBA OHA appeal has a reasonable likelihood of success, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may issue an injunction prohibiting the procuring agency from awarding the contract pending the result of the SBA OHA size appeal.

Continue reading →