An agency did not act improperly by allowing for oral final proposal revisions, rather than permitting offerors to submit written FPRs following discussions.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that–at least in the context of a task order awarded under FAR 16.505–an agency could validly accept oral revisions to offerors’ proposals.
The GAO’s jurisdiction to hear most protests in connection with task and delivery order awards under civilian multiple award IDIQs has expired.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear protests in connection with civilian task and delivery order awards valued over $10 million because the underlying statutory authority expired on September 30, 2016.
I am back in Lawrence after a great trip to Minneapolis last week for the 2016 National Veterans Small Business Engagement. At the NVSBE, I presented four Learning Sessions: one on the nomanufacturer rule, the second on SDVOSB joint ventures, the third on best (and worst) practices in prime/subcontractor teaming agreements, and the fourth on common myths in the SBA’s size and socioeconomic set-aside programs (no, a contractor is not required to list a solicitation’s specific NAICS code in the contractor’s SAM profile).
It was great to see so many familiar faces and make so many new acquaintances. A big thank you to the organizers for putting on this fantastic event and inviting me to speak. Thank you, also, to all of the contractors, acquisition personnel and others who attended my Learning Sessions, asked insightful questions, and stuck around to chat afterwards. Another “thank you” who those who stopped by the Koprince Law LLC booth on the trade show floor to talk about government contracts law and collect a spiffy Koprince Law pen. And finally, thank you to all of the veterans who attended the NVSBE–and those who didn’t–for your service to our country.
The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals will have authority to hear petitions for reconsideration of SBA size standards under a proposed rule recently issued by the SBA.
Once the proposal becomes a final rule, anyone “adversely affected” by a new, revised or modified size standard would have 30 days to ask OHA to review the SBA’s size standard determination.
Wow! After 108 years, my Chicago Cubs are the World Series champions! I was in Minneapolis for this year’s National Veterans Small Business Engagement (which was an amazing event), and split my Game 7 viewing between the hotel bar and my room. I wish I could have been at Wrigley Field, and I wish that my grandfather (who really started the family on the whole Cubs thing) could have been alive to see it. But I am sure somewhere he is smiling along with all the other Cubs fans who couldn’t see this moment.
While my week consisted mostly of convention halls and Cubs, there was no shortage of news in the world of government contracting. In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, a company was able to continue contracting with the VA even after it was indicted and convicted of fraud, a new report indicates that WOSBs are still being shut out of opportunities to earn major government contracts, a look ahead to the election and what changes may lie for federal contractors, a contractor gave a high-ranking government official free living space–and didn’t violate the ethics rules–and much more.
An offeror’s proposal to hire incumbent personnel–but pay those personnel less than they are earning under the incumbent contract–presents an “obvious” price realism concern that an agency must address when price realism is a component of the evaluation.
In a bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency’s price realism evaluation was inadequate where the agency failed to address the awardee’s proposal to hire incumbent personnel at discounted rates.
An agency failed to meet its obligations to properly publicize a simplified acquisition valued between $15,000 and $25,000 where the agency placed the solicitation in a three-ring binder at the reception desk in a government office–and that office was closed during most of the relevant time.
In a recent decision, the GAO affirmed that principle that even when the dollar value of a simplified acquisition doesn’t meet the requirement for electronic posting on FedBizOpps, the agency still must take reasonable steps to maximize competition.