AbilityOne Program: Court Shoots Down “Arbitrary and Capricious” Contract Award

Posted on December 12, 2012 by Steven Koprince

The AbilityOne Program cannot be used to award a contract when it is questionable whether the contractor will comply with the requirement that significant portions of the work be performed by the severely disabled, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In Systems Application & Technologies, Inc., No. 12-526C (2012), Judge Eric Bruggink, in an opinion brimming with colorful quotes, shot down the Army’s effort to award a contract involving significant degrees of physical labor at a remote location to an erstwhile AbilityOne participant, holding that the prospective awardee had not come close to demonstrating that the work would (or could) be performed by the severely disabled.

For contractors concerned that the AbilityOne program may be subject to misuse, the Systems Application case is confirmation both that questionable practices occur in AbilityOne contracting, and that such practices will not be tolerated by the Court.

HUBZone Fraud: Contractors Agree To $6.25 Million Settlement

Posted on December 11, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Two Kentucky-based government contractors and their owners have agreed to pay $6.25 million to settle HUBZone fraud claims, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release.

The costly settlement puts an end to a saga involving DOJ claims of a vacant “principal” office, undisclosed affiliation, and fraudulent statements made to the SBA and and the U.S. Army.

SBA OHA: Northrop Grumman Entity Was An Ostensible Subcontractor

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Steven Koprince

You would think a company as large as Northrop Grumman would know how to avoid ostensible subcontractor affiliation with a small prime, wouldn’t you?

You’d be wrong. In a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, a Northrop Grumman entity entered into a teaming arrangement with a small prime, in which all three key employees identified in the proposal were employed by the large subcontractor. The result: ostensible subcontractor affiliation.

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.