Happy Memorial Day! Please take some time this weekend to remember those veterans who have sacrificed for our country.
And amidst the fun of kicking off summer this weekend, you can read up on some of the latest happenings in government contracting. In this Memorial Day edition of the SmallGovCon Week in Review, you can read about GSA’s new e-commerce platform, a new federal civilian cloud platform, and whether cyber security failures can lead to a false claims case.
Continue reading…Agencies have some discretion to seek clarification of a question after reviewing a proposal. But when must the agency do so? GAO allows agencies substantial discretion in choosing whether or not to seek proposal clarifications. But the Court of Federal Claims has a dramatically different standard than GAO for reviewing when an agency must seek clarification for a proposal.
A recent Court of Federal Claims decision confirms (as in a 2016 decision) that agencies should seek clarification for obvious proposal errors. But according to the court, there is a difference between an obvious proposal error and a calculated decision on the contractor’s part. This decision was about how to tell the difference.
Continue reading…As anyone in the federal contracting line of work knows, deadlines come at you fast and hard. In a recent GAO decision, GAO refused to relax the timeliness rules associated with protests of solicitation requirements, even where that left the contractor with very little time to protest.
Continue reading…Strong working relationships between contractors and contracting officers are a significant asset. For example, the Customs and Border Patrol recently relied heavily on its experience working with the incumbent contractor to “infer” proposed technical approaches and award corresponding strengths. Unfortunately, when this award was subsequently protested, GAO did not agree with the Border Patrol’s inferential technique.
As GAO explained, a reviewing agency may not credit a bid with technical strengths that are not present within the proposal.
Continue reading…SBA’s socio-economic set-aside programs mandate compliance with multiple control requirements. An important one stipulates that a woman owner of a WOSB (or a veteran for a SDVOSB or a disadvantaged owner for an 8(a) business) must have the “managerial experience of the extent and complexity to run the concern.”
But what, exactly, does this requirement entail? A recent OHA case provides some important guidance.
Continue reading…Joint venture agreements continue to be a hot topic among small business federal contractors. For good reason: if the agreement is properly prepared, a joint venture allows two companies (including, in the case of an approved mentor and protégé, a large business) to augment their capabilities and jointly bid on a federal project.
But to avail themselves of this benefit, the venturers must first prepare a joint venture agreement that complies with the SBA’s requirements. Sometimes, this task can be quite tricky. And as a recent decision of the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals shows, the failure to have a compliant joint venture agreement can cost the joint venture an award.
Continue reading…We recently discussed at length the SBA’s proposed rule to get rid of WOSB self-certification and revise some of the other WOSB certification rules. Well, it seems like SBA is crossing a lot of things off its to-do list, because in that same proposed rule, SBA also proposes to “to make the economic disadvantage requirements for the 8(a) BD program consistent to the economic disadvantage requirements for women-owned firms seeking EDWOSB status” and to “eliminate the distinction in the 8(a) BD program for initial entry into and continued eligibility for the program.”
If the rule is approved, the dollar amounts for initial 8(a) economic disadvantage eligibility would increase quite a bit, making more people economically eligible. Read on for the details on this proposed change.
Continue reading…