A small business set-aside procurement did not violate the FAR’s restrictions on contract bundling, according to the GAO.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO pointed out the bundling occurs when a procurement would be unsuitable for award to small business, and held that a set-aside procurement–by its nature–is not unsuitable for small businesses.
On Thursday, I had the pleasure of attending the Alliance Northwest Conference in Washington State, where I gave a breakfast keynote, as well as a breakout session. My breakout presentation, “Government Contracts Legal Update 2014,” focused on legal developments of interest to small government contractors over the past several months.
A big “thank you” to the organizers and sponsors for putting together an outstanding event. And of course, extra thanks to all the government employees, large businesses, and small business owners who attended.
If you were not able to make it to Alliance Northwest, you don’t have to be left out. Just contact me and I would be happy to provide you with a copy of my breakout session presentation.
Submitting a proposal for a task order under an 8(a) Government Wide Acquisition Contract does not result in automatic recertification of the offeror’s small business size status.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that unless the Contracting Officer expressly requires recertification, an offeror’s size for an 8(a) set-aside task order is governed by that offeror’s size status for the underlying GWAC.
Now here’s one you don’t see every day. In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the SBA’s determination that the contractor was affiliated with the government of Puerto Rico.
In Size Appeal of Industria Lechera de Puerto Rico, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5533 (2014), SBA OHA held that the contractor’s relationship with the Puerto Rican government rendered the contractor, in essence, a quasi-governmental entity, not an independent small business.
An agency reasonably considered the quantity of offerors’ relevant past performance, even though the solicitation only stated that the relevance and quality of past performance would be considered.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the quantity of an offeror’s past performance is logically encompassed within a review of the quality of past performance, and need not be separately identified as an area of evaluation.
A procuring agency did not engage in impermissible discussions by allowing a small business to verify its intent to comply with the applicable limitation on subcontracting.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the information regarding the small business’s compliance with the subcontracting limits was a permissible “clarification,” and did not require the agency to open discussions with all offerors in the competitive range.
The GAO lacks jurisdiction to decide whether an agency improperly suspended or debarred a contractor from federal government contracting.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO dismissed a protest filed by a debarred contractor, holding that the protester’s underlying challenge to its debarment was a matter for resolution by the contracting agency, not the GAO.