Offeror’s Email Proposal “Bounces Back,” Agency Not To Blame

A procuring agency was not at fault when an offeror’s emailed proposal “bounced back” because of the large size of the email.

In a recent decision, the GAO applied the general rule that it is “an offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time” and held that the agency was not to blame when its email server rejected the large email containing the offeror’s proposal.

Continue reading…

Large Prime Hit For “Consistent Failure” To Meet Subcontracting Goals

A large prime contractor’s “consistent failure” to meet its small business and socioeconomic subcontracting goals on prior projects resulted in a lower past performance score–and led to the prime’s elimination from the competition.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency properly eliminated a prospective prime contractor from the competition in part because the large business had not met its subcontracting goals on three recent contracts.

Continue reading…

Price Realism Evaluation: Only If Solicitation Says So

An agency awarding a fixed-price contract can only evaluate offerors’ proposals for price realism–that is, determine whether offerors’ proposed pricing is so low as to be unrealistic–if the solicitation calls for a price realism evaluation.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that when a fixed-price solicitation does not advise offerors that a price realism evaluation will be conducted, the agency is not permitted to reject an offeror’s proposal because of unrealistically low pricing.

Continue reading…

Thank You, Alliance Northwest!

I am at the tail end of a great visit to the Pacific Northwest, where I spoke yesterday at the Alliance Northwest procurement conference.  My presentation focused on the many recent legal changes (and proposed changes) affecting small contractors, including SBA proposals on the limitations on subcontracting and a new “universal” SBA mentor-protege program.

Many thanks to the organizers of this wonderful event, which gets bigger and better every year.  Special thanks to Tiffany Scroggs, Stephanie Scott, Traci Hansen and their colleagues at the Washington PTAC for all of their hard work on the conference, and a big thank you to Ashley Coronado of the Washington PTAC for facilitating my session (including flawless pronunciation of “Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird.”)  And of course, a big “thank you” to everyone who attended my presentation and stopped by to visit on the trade show floor.

It’s a year away, but I certainly plan to be back in Washington next year for the 2016 Alliance Northwest event.  In the meantime, if you weren’t able to attend this year, I would be happy to send you my slides–please just contact me.

GAO: No Set-Aside Challenge After Proposal Due Date

A prospective contractor has the right to file a GAO bid protest challenging an agency’s refusal to set aside a solicitation for small businesses–but only if the protest is filed before the proposal deadline.

In a recent protest decision, the GAO applied the longstanding rule that “alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial proposals be filed before that time,” and held that an agency’s failure to issue a set-aside is an “alleged impropriety” to which the timeliness rule applies.

Continue reading…

Non-Manufacturer Rule: Foreign-Made Products Didn’t Qualify

A contractor did not qualify as a small business under the non-manufacturer rule where it proposed to sell foreign-made products–even though the contractor itself was well below the solicitation’s 500-employee size standard.

In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that a contractor was ineligible to be awarded a small business set-aside contract for manufactured products because the products were to be manufactured in Turkey.

Continue reading…

8(a)’s Unapproved Mentor-Protege Arrangement Leads To Affiliation

An 8(a) small business was found to be affiliated with its large subcontractor under the ostensible subcontractor rule based in part on the fact that the large subcontractor was providing mentoring services to the small business–even though the SBA had rejected a proposed mentor-protege agreement between the companies.

The recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in Size Appeal of Brown & Pipkins LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5621 (2014) is a warning to 8(a) firms about the potential dangers of accepting mentoring services outside the confines of a SBA-approved mentor-protege agreement.

Continue reading…