Bond Mistake Sinks Contractor’s Bid

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Check your bid bonds, then check them again–especially if you are bidding on multiple procurements at the same time.

That’s the lesson to be learned from a recent GAO bid protest decision, in which a contractor’s bid was rejected because its bid bond referenced the wrong solicitation number and bid opening date. Reading between the lines, it seems that a simple mistake occurred, confusing the solicitation with another procurement. But assuming that to be the case, the simple mistake (and the contractor’s failure to catch it) cost the contractor an award.

Federal Court: Small Business Set-Asides Are “Competitive”

Posted on December 4, 2012 by Steven Koprince

A federal judge has denied a large business’s pre-award bid protest, which was based on the large company’s argument that small business set-asides do not constitute a type of competitive procurement.

Although the decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Res-Care, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-251C (2012) involved a specific statute applicable to Job Corps Centers, the court’s affirmation of small business set-asides as “competitive” reinforces an important principle underlying FAR Part 19 and other programs benefiting small government contractors.

SDVOSB Set-Asides: VA Properly Limited Market Research By Region, Says GAO

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Steven Koprince

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs properly limited its SDVOSB market research to firms located in the geographic area where the contract would be performed, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.

In an era in which many contractors bid on procurements nationally, the GAO’s rationale is debatable–but should serve as a reminder that SDVOSBs cannot take VA set-asides for granted, even when the VA does not use the Federal Supply Schedule.

GAO: “5-7 Days” Is Not “7 Days”

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Steven Koprince

“What a Difference a Day Makes,” goes the classic song.

For one contractor, a day–or rather, two days–made a big difference in its proposal evaluation. Although the solicitation called for offerors to save laboratory specimens for 7 days, the offeror’s proposal stated that it saves specimens “5-7 days.” Not surprisingly, the GAO found that the procuring agency properly assigned the offeror a weakness.

SDVOSBs Lose Aldevra Battle With VA, Says Federal Court

Posted on November 29, 2012 by Steven Koprince

As I briefly reported last night, in a crushing blow to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has overturned the GAO’s Aldevra decisions.

Judge Nancy Firestone, ruling in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-173C (Nov. 27, 2012), held that the VA reasonably interpreted the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 as not requiring consideration of a SDVOSB set-aside before the VA procures goods and services under the Federal Supply Schedule. For SDVOSBs, the Kingdomware Technologies ruling means that the VA’s much-ballyhooed “Veterans First” acquisition policy means little more than “Veterans First (If We Feel Like It).”

Breaking: Federal Court Sides With VA, Overturns Aldevra Decisions

Posted on November 28, 2012 by Steven Koprince

VetLikeMe, a publication advocating for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, is reporting tonight that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of the VA in a decision essentially overturning the GAO’s Aldevra line of cases.

The court’s decision, issued by Judge Nancy Firestone, has not yet appeared on the Court of Federal Claims’ website, but I have seen a copy of the ruling and can confirm VetLikeMe’s report.

In the decision, Judge Firestone holds that the VA need not consider a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses before procuring supplies or services under the Federal Supply Schedule. Judge Firestone’s ruling essentially reverses more than a year’s worth of GAO decisions holding that the VA had violated the law by using FSS procedures without first considering SDVOSB set-asides.

More tomorrow on this crushing legal blow to SDVOSBs.

Federal Court Upholds Agency’s 40% Small Business Subcontracting Goal

Posted on November 28, 2012 by Steven Koprince

The United States Court of Federal Claims has denied a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration’s establishment of a 40% small business subcontracting goal–measured by total contract price, not total subcontracting dollars.

In Firstline Transportation Security v. The United States, No,. 12-601C (2012), Judge Thomas Wheeler rejected arguments that the TSA’s 40% small business subcontracting goal was unreasonable, contrary to the FAR, and improperly established a partial small business set-aside.