A NAICS code appeal ordinarily must be filed within ten days of the issuance of a solicitation–and a prospective offeror’s discussions with the Contracting Officer do not extend the deadline.
In a recent NAICS code appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that the ten-day clock keeps moving even while a prospective offeror is working behind the scenes in an effort to convince the procuring agency to change the NAICS code.
Hopefully those of you on the East Coast are hunkered down and ready for the historic snow storm headed your way. And since many of our readers may be having a lot of unplanned time at home this weekend, we have the perfect idea to prevent boredom: catching up on the latest and greatest in government contracts news.
In this week’s edition of SmallGovCon Week In Review, a major investigation of the AbilityOne program is underway, Guy Timberlake offers some common sense advice on multiple-award contracts, and much more.
Individuals who had common investments in eight different companies were treated as a single person for purposes of the SBA’s affiliation rules–and the aggregation of those owners’ interests cost one company a small business set-aside award.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals explained how the little-understood common investments affiliation rule works, and in so doing, provided an important warning to business owners who may not realize that affiliation can result from common investments in multiple entities.
When a procuring agency asks for details, an offeror better provide those details–or run the risk of exclusion from the competition.
Recently, the GAO has confirmed that offerors must provide sufficient detail or run the risk of being eliminated from a competition. First, came Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 16, 2015), where GAO held that an agency can find a proposal technically unacceptable when it essentially parrots the terms of the solicitation. Now comes LOTOS S.r.l., B-411717.5 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 19, 2015), where GAO found that the agency had reasonably excluded an offeror from the competition based in part on the offeror’s failure to provide a detailed organizational chart.
With half of January already in the books and the days already beginning to stay light longer, we can begin to dream about warm spring months ahead. That is, until you walk out the front door and a blast of winter air hits your face. But so long as it is cold outside, why not curl up somewhere warm with a little light government contracts reading?
In this week’s SmallGovCon Week in Review, we bring you articles involving fraud charges, a rundown of some new legislation that could affect contractors, the potential elimination of DUNS codes, plus much more.
An incumbent contractor was not entitled to “extra credit” for its status as the incumbent, nor was the incumbent entitled to the highest-possible past performance rating.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that the mere fact that an offeror is the incumbent contractor does not require the procuring agency to assign the offeror a particular past performance score, so long as the agency’s past performance evaluation is reasonable.
A SBA size determination, in which the SBA found a contractor to be an eligible small business for purposes of a particular procurement, was irrelevant to the question of whether the same contractor would violate the limitation on subcontracting under a different solicitation.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO (correctly) rejected the procuring agency’s argument that a recent SBA size determination was evidence that a contractor would comply with the subcontracting limitation.