In a best value competition, when two offerors receive identical adjectival scores on the non-price factors, one might assume that the procuring agency would be required to award the contract to the lower-priced offeror.
Not so. In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that where two offerors received identical scores on three non-price factors, the agency could still elect to award the contract to the higher-priced offeror.
Last year, we wrote about the SBA’s Office of Inspector General’s concerns with the SBA’s review of potential 8(a) participants’ eligibility. In this report, the OIG made three recommendations aimed at improving to verify applicants’ eligibility.
Just last week, the OIG released a new report analyzing the 8(a) Program. This report picks up where the earlier report left off—it addressed several issues in the SBA’s evaluation of participants’ continuing eligibility.
The results of this report are rather alarming: based on its review, the OIG identified almost $127 million in 8(a) set-aside awards to ineligible firms.
As we’ve noted here on SmallGovCon, appealing the assignment of a NAICS code for a solicitation is often successful. But the time frame for doing so is short, and there are other procedural limitations. Given the short deadlines and procedural hurdles, are there any signals to help identify when a NAICS code appeal might be in order?
Recently, SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals provided some guidelines in discussing the assignment of NAICS codes in the Computer Facilities Management Services, Research and Development, and Engineering Services codes.
As our readers well know, a good proposal for a federal government procurement is an exercise in persuasive writing. You muster your creative powers to convince the source selection authority that you offer the best product or service, that your price is competitive, and that your past performance is stellar. So you invest heavily in your proposal writers; you review your proposal repeatedly to polish and ensure that it compels; you agonize.
But while the artistic portion of your proposal is, without dispute, extraordinarily important, don’t neglect the seemingly mundane–like CAGE codes. Get that wrong, and GAO just might sustain your competitor’s protest.
Happy Friday, everybody!
As always, we wanted to bring you a roundup of government contracting news. In this week’s edition of the SmallGovCon Week in Review, we’ll take a look at some potential updates to GSA contracts, reminders of the trouble that comes along with defrauding the government, and more.
Have a great weekend!
Recently, GAO sustained a bid protest where the ratings assigned to the unsuccessful offeror’s proposal did not conform to the definitions identified within the Solicitation.
For those of you frequent the blog, you may recall earlier this year when we blogged on GAO’s decision in Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-415155 et al. (Dec. 4, 2017) where the Source Selection Authority had unilaterally revised the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s evaluation prior to making an award decision. GAO sustained the protest and instructed the agency to reevaluate proposals. This same procurement was subject to another round of protests following the agency’s reevaluation.
The Department of Defense has issued a class deviation raising the micro-purchase threshold to $10,000, effective immediately.
The increase implements Section 821 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law last month.