You have your eye on a solicitation. You know the work, you know the customer, and you are certain that you would be a front-runner for the award. Then, you learn that the agency is limiting competition for the procurement, and you can no longer compete for the contract. Immediately, you think that the agency must have made a mistake. After all, you were fully prepared to submit a proposal and perform the work. But is believing you could have competed for the contract and won the award enough to satisfy the requirements for filing a bid protest? A recent COFC decision answers this question.
Continue readingTag Archives: competition
“In Scope” vs. “Out of Scope” Modifications: How GAO Explains The Difference
One of the perennially popular topics on SmallGovCon has been the question of what constitutes a modification to a contract that renders that modification “Out of Scope.” This post will explore a leading GAO decision that came out back in 2017, along with some recent updates on this same question.
An agency may modify a contract without having to deal with restrictions in the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 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 leading 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.
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.
Agency’s Discretion Over Solicitation’s Technical Specifications Isn’t Unlimited
A major tenet in government contracting is that agencies enjoy broad discretion in identifying their needs and developing the most appropriate solicitation to satisfy them. Though broad, this discretion is not unlimited. If challenged, an agency must demonstrate that its specifications are reasonably necessary to meet its needs and are not unduly restrictive of competition.
GAO recently affirmed this principle in Pitney Bowes, Inc., B-413876.2 (Feb. 13, 2017), when it sustained a protest challenging a solicitation’s requirements as being unduly restrictive of competition.
GAO: No “Public Posting” Of Solicitation In Closed Government Office
An agency failed to meet its obligations to properly publicize a simplified acquisition valued between $15,000 and $25,000 where the agency placed the solicitation in a three-ring binder at the reception desk in a government office–and that office was closed during most of the relevant time.
In a recent decision, the GAO affirmed that principle that even when the dollar value of a simplified acquisition doesn’t meet the requirement for electronic posting on FedBizOpps, the agency still must take reasonable steps to maximize competition.