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.
See our updated post on this topic here.
Koprince Law recently gave a presentation on small business size and affiliation issues the Contract Opportunities Center. This presentation got us thinking: “Wouldn’t our loyal SmallGovCon readers want to know 5 Things about size protests and appeals?”
“Of course they would!” we immediately answered our own internal monologue. “After all, who wouldn’t?”
Here are 5 Things You Should Know about size protests and appeals:
The Labor Day weekend is inching closer! Before you enjoy the unofficial end of summer, let’s take a look at the SmallGovCon Week in Review.
This week’s edition includes suggestions for interacting with a Contracting Officer Representative, a proposed DFARs amendment, contractors behaving badly, and more.
Have a great weekend!
The Government improperly threatened to terminate a contractor for default, because there was no good reason to believe the contractor had actually defaulted.
In a fascinating new decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Government’s threat–made to a contractor with cash-flow issues–amounted to coercion, and invalidated a settlement agreement that awarded the contractor much less than it probably should have received.
An Air Force Contracting Officer, asked by a contractor where to send an appeal, provided the contractor with information about the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, not the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
Despite the Contracting Officer’s erroneous advice, the CBCA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.