Tag Archives: bids and proposals

Nonmanufacturer Rule: Post-Proposal Substitutions Don’t Work

Posted on by

The nonmanufacturer rule requires, among other things, that the prime contractor supply the end items of a small business manufacturer, or obtain a SBA waiver of that requirement.  Compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule is determined as of the date of the final proposal–and a subsequent switch in manufacturers won’t be recognized by the SBA.

In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA had erred by evaluating a prospective prime contractor’s nonmanufacturer rule compliance because the small business end manufacturer in question had not provided a quotation to the prime until well after the prime’s proposal had been submitted.

Continue reading →

GAO To Contractors: Use Your Own Words

Posted on by

In a recent decision, the GAO played seventh-grade English teacher, reminding offerors to use their own words to get full proposal-writing credit.

In the case of Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Oct. 16, 2015), the agency found a proposal unacceptable because, in its view, the offeror had simply restated the terms of the solicitation. The GAO agreed with the agency’s decision, writing that a proposal that merely restates the requirements of the solicitation without adding detail and insight into how the offeror would manage and execute the contract can be found unacceptable.

Continue reading →

Offeror’s Winning Bid Of $0.00 Was Acceptable, Says GAO

Posted on by

Under certain circumstances, the winning bidder on a fixed-price contract may offer $0.00.

In a recent decision, LCPtracker, Inc.; eMars, Inc., B-410752.3 et al (Sept. 3, 2015), the GAO held an offeror submitting a zero-dollar offer (that is, an offer for $0.00) was eligible to receive a fixed-price contract because both the Government and the contractor would receive benefits under the contract.

Continue reading →

Agency’s “Cut-And-Paste” Proposal Evaluation Upheld

Posted on by

An agency’s evaluation of proposals was not improper even though the Source Selection Authority “cut and paste” portions of a selection document used in a similar procurement–including typographical errors and a reference to a firm that had not submitted a proposal.

The GAO’s recent decision highlights an uncomfortable truth of government contracting: while the government can (and often does) demand nearly perfect proposals, the government may be able to get by with sloppy or lazy evaluations.

Continue reading →

Subcontractor Price Proposals: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Subcontractors sometimes prefer to submit their cost or price proposals directly to the government, instead of submitting their cost or pricing information through the prime contractor.  In cases where a procuring agency allows it, such independent submissions can ease a subcontractor’s concerns about disclosing sensitive information to the prime contractor.

But when a subcontractor circumvents the prime contractor and independently submits its pricing, the prime contractor is unable to review the subcontractor’s proposal to ensure that it complies with the terms of the solicitation.  As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, if the subcontractor’s proposal is non-compliant, the entire team may pay the price.

Continue reading →

GAO: 28-Day Proposal Period Was Reasonable

Posted on by

A 28-day period was sufficient time for offerors to prepare proposals in response to a solicitation for janitorial and mechanical services.

In a recent decision, the GAO held that, under the circumstances of the procurement, it was reasonable for the agency to allow fewer than 30 days to respond to the solicitation–and noted that the protester’s delayed search for teammates was a “significant reason” for the protester’s own difficulties in submitting a timely proposal.

Continue reading →

Offeror’s Email Proposal “Bounces Back,” Agency Not To Blame

Posted on by

A procuring agency was not at fault when an offeror’s emailed proposal “bounced back” because of the large size of the email.

In a recent decision, the GAO applied the general rule that it is “an offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time” and held that the agency was not to blame when its email server rejected the large email containing the offeror’s proposal.

Continue reading →