Tag Archives: bids and proposals

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: Lessons Learned From SBA OHA

Posted on by

Avoiding affiliation under the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule can be difficult, especially since the ostensible subcontractor rule itself, 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), does not provide many examples of the factors that may cause ostensible subcontractor affiliation.

A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, Size Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5436 (2013), demonstrates that even when a proposed subcontractor will play a major role in the procurement, ostensible subcontractor affiliation may be avoided if the parties carefully structure their relationship.

Continue reading →

Federal Judge Schools VA On Timeliness, Alice In Wonderland

Posted on by

For a procuring agency, is there anything worse than being schooled on principles of timeliness and fairness by a federal judge?

As the Department of Veterans Affairs found out in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, there is something that may be worse: being schooled by a federal judge repeatedly quoting from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the 1865 book by Lewis Carroll.

Continue reading →

GAO: Q&A Qualified As Solicitation Amendment

Posted on by

A contractor’s proposal may be rejected for failing to address a requirement contained in a question-and-answer document, so long as the Q&A contains all of the essential elements of a solicitation amendment.

This was the ruling of the GAO in a recent bid protest decision, Energy Engineering & Consulting Services, LLC, B-407352 (Dec. 21, 2012), in which an offeror’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to address a standard imposed in a Q&A.

Continue reading →

Bond Mistake Sinks Contractor’s Bid

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

GAO: “5-7 Days” Is Not “7 Days”

Posted on by

“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.

Continue reading →

GAO: Agency Properly Upped Contractor’s Proposed Labor Rates

Posted on by

Here’s hoping that you had a wonderful Thanksgiving, full of relaxation, family time, football and lots of food.

For one Arizona contractor, the holiday was a little less festive this year, after the contractor lost out on a Navy cost-reimbursement contract–in part because the Navy unilaterally upped some of the contractor’s proposed labor rates.  The GAO found nothing wrong with the agency’s decision, holding that the Navy reasonably determined that the contractor’s proposed labor rates were unrealistically low.

Continue reading →

GAO: Protester’s “Scant” Past Performance Descriptions Justified Low Score

Posted on by

If your high school teacher or college professor had asked you to compose an essay up to five pages in length, would you expect an “A” for writing a single paragraph?

Probably not, and the same principle applies when it comes to proposals.  In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the agency gave contractors up to five pages to describe each past performance reference.  Not surprisingly, the GAO held that it was reasonable for the procuring agency to downgrade an offeror’s past performance score when that offeror only provided a one-paragraph write-up of each project.

Continue reading →