Price Realism: Agency Improperly Used Unacceptable Proposals for Comparison

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Earlier this week, the International Cycling Union announced that it would strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, stating that overwhelming evidence existed that Armstrong had won those titles by doping. For cyclists who play by the rules, it is only fair that they not be forced to chase Armstrong’s Tour record, which he apparently achieved in an unacceptable way (and you can count me among those who think Roger Maris and Hank Aaron have pretty strong claims to baseball’s single-season and career home run marks, too).

When it comes to sporting records, comparing a clean athlete to a cheater seems unfair. Similarly, in the government contracting world, using unacceptable proposals as a basis of comparison for other proposals’ price realism is improper, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision. In Lifecycle Construction Services, LLC, B-406907 (Sept. 27, 2012), the GAO sustained the protest because of significant errors in the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s price realism–including comparing that price to the prices of three unreasonably high-priced proposals.

WOSB Downgraded for Reliance on Teammate’s Experience

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Small government contractors often rely on teammates and subcontractors to demonstrate relevant experience. But as one recently-published GAO bid protest decision shows, some procuring agencies may take a dim view of such reliance.

In Quasars, Inc., B-405747 (Dec. 7, 2011), the agency found that a woman-owned small business’s reliance on a teammate for relevant experience was risky, because that teammate might leave, depriving the team of the necessary expertise. The GAO found nothing unreasonable in the agency’s evaluation.

Government Rejects Contractor’s Bills for Flowers, Hunting Club, Jazz

Posted on October 18, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Roses are red, violets are blue–and a government contractor can’t bill Uncle Sam for either one, according to a recent decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

In Thomas Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 57795 (2012), the ASBCA rejected a contractor’s claim that it was entitled to stick the government with a variety of costs I will charitably describe as “questionable,” including a hunting club membership, jazz ensemble, a lavish Christmas party, and yes, flowers given to employees, ostensibly to boost morale.

GAO: Required Proposal Information Cannot Be Provided Post-Award

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Steven Koprince

“We’ll tell you how we’ll manage the contract–after you award it to us.”

That, in essence, appeared to be the position taken by one contractor recently in response to a Department of Defense solicitation. The contractor in question failed to provide an operations and management plan required by the solicitation, pledging to provide it after award. Not surprisingly, the agency assigned the contractor an “unacceptable” score. And equally unsurprising, the GAO denied the contractor’s bid protest.

Agency to Offerors: Show Us Your Subcontracts

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Small government contractors sometimes rely on subcontractors to help satisfy experience, certification, past performance, and other solicitation requirements. But if one recent GAO bid protest decision is an indication of things to come, procuring agencies may begin requiring more information up front about major subcontractors–including a copy of the final subcontract agreement itself.

GAO: Agency Evaluators Improperly Relied Upon Undisclosed Staffing Estimate

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Steven Koprince

“I’m thinking of a number between one and ten–can you guess what it is?”

It sounds like the beginning of an amateur magic trick, or perhaps a segment on the ever-popular Colbert Report. But in a recent GAO bid protest decision, the stakes of the guessing game were a lot higher. In that case, the agency developed an internal estimate of the staffing needed to successfully complete the contract work, but did not disclose the estimate to offerors–then downgraded two offerors for failing to “guess” the same staffing numbers as the agency.

Unfortunately for the agency, the GAO refused to play along.

AbilityOne Program: False Claims Act Allegation Leads to $5 Million Settlement

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Steven Koprince

More than once, a small government contractor has complained to me that there is “just no way” a particular AbilityOne contract recipient is performing at least 75% of direct labor hours with people who are blind or have other significant disabilities, as is required for a non-profit agency to participate in the AbilityOne Program.

Now those same contractors might be saying “I told you so.” The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that a Texas company has a greed to pay $5 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that the company failed to comply with the 75% direct hour requirement over a period of six years, but misreported its compliance to the government.