When is a competitor’s low price simply too low to be realistic? Maybe never, at least when it comes to challenging the low price in a GAO bid protest.
As seen in a recent GAO bid protest decision, when a fixed-price solicitation does not call for a price realism analysis, the procuring agency is not required to conduct one–and a competitor will not succeed in challenging the award on the basis of a supposedly unrealistically low price.
A federal regulation states that NAICS code appeals are timely if filed within ten business days. So why was one small business’s NAICS code appeal dismissed even though it filed the appeal within the time period called for by the regulation?
According to SBA OHA, the regulation was erroneous, and the actual NAICS code appeal deadline is ten calendar days. I don’t know about you, but to me, the result doesn’t seem particularly fair to the contractor.
NAICS code appeals can be powerful competitive weapons–either shrinking or expanding the competitive playing field if they are successful. Sometimes, simply filing a NAICS code appeal can convince the procuring agency that the wrong NAICS code was assigned, leading to a successful outcome before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals even has the opportunity to rule on the merits.
The VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise is rejecting about 60% of initial SDVOSB verification applications, according to Thomas Leney, the VA OSDBU Executive Director. Leney gave the figure in testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Economic Opportunity on Friday, August 3.
In an excellent piece on Federal News Radio’s website, reporters Esther Carey, Ruben Gomez and Jared Serbu offer some other interesting insights from Leney’s testimony–including the incredibly broad definition of “unconditional” ownership and control used by the CVE.
SBA size protests are only timely if received within five business days. The SBA size protest timeliness rule can confuse potential protesters, because it is different than the 10-day rule applicable to most post-award GAO bid protests.
In a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, a would-be protester apparently got tripped up by the different filing periods, incorrectly interpreting a solicitation provision regarding GAO bid protests as establishing an extended SBA size protest filing deadline. SBA OHA held that the protester’s misunderstanding did not entitle it to file a late SBA size protest.
Bidding against an incumbent prime contractor often presents unique challenges. In some cases, the incumbent has been highly successful, and the procuring agency may hope to award the follow-on to the same company. Even if the agency is not predisposed to favor the incumbent, the incumbent often knows more than its challengers about how the new procurement will actually operate “in real life.”
But just because an incumbent has unique information about the ongoing procurement does not mean that the procuring agency is necessarily required to level the playing field by releasing that information to challengers. For instance, in one recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that the procuring agency was not required to release the names of the incumbent’s subcontractors or other proprietary and confidential information about the incumbent contract.
A little more than a week ago, I blogged about the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision in NAICS Appeal of Delphi Research Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5377 (2012), in which a small business used the NAICS code appeal process to change the relevant size standard from 1,500 employees to $25.5 million. The Delphi NAICS code appeal decision effectively lowered the solicitation’s size standard, increasing the ability of smaller companies like the protester to compete.
However, it is important to remember that the NAICS code appeal process works both ways. If a company is too large for the size standard the procuring agency assigns to a solicitation, it may be able to use the NAICS code appeal process to replace the agency’s preferred NAICS code with a NAICS code carrying a higher size standard. This is precisely what happened in a recently-decided SBA OHA case, NAICS Appeal of CHP International, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5367 (2012).