Losing an award can be quite tough, especially when you are the incumbent on the preceding related contract. Often, a salve for an incumbent contractor’s pain can be a bid protest which may result in a bridge contract to that incumbent for the period of the protest. This actually was a fairly common practice for many years in federal contracting. Consequently, many contractors have interpreted such an incumbent bridge contract as a requirement, not simply a course of dealing. However, the United States Court of Federal Claims has highlighted the harsh reality that the incumbent is absolutely not guaranteed a bridge contract after a bid protest, and the agency may take other actions with the named awardee without violating the stay’s requirements.
Continue readingTag Archives: CICA
Conflicting CIO-SP4 Updates For CTAs, And Now, A Promise to Clarify
We finally have NITAAC’s CIO-SP4 solicitation, complete with several amendments and a Q&A. So that means the anticipated offerors have the answers to all of their questions about this long-awaited GWAC procurement, right? Well, no. In fact, for anyone planning to team-up for CIO-SP4, there seems to be more confusion now than ever before.
Continue reading“In Scope” vs. “Out of Scope” Modifications: GAO Explains The Difference
An agency may modify a contract without running afoul of the Competition in Contracting Act, so long as the the modification is deemed “in scope.” An “out of scope” modification, on the other hand, is improper–and may be protested at GAO.
In a recent bid protest decision, GAO denied a protest challenging an agency’s modification of a contract where the modification was within scope and of a nature that competitors could have reasonably anticipated at the time of award. In its decision, GAO explained the difference between an in scope and out of scope modification, including the factors GAO will use to determine whether the modification is permissible.