The U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task-order competition under a government-wide acquisition contract.
In MORI Associates, Inc., No. 13-671C (2013), the Court held that it lacked authority to consider whether an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task order competition under a GWAC–rather than under the GSA Schedule–was improper.
A procuring agency erred by failing to seek clarification of an obvious clerical error in a small business’s proposal, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc., No. 13-378C (2013), the Court held that although procuring agencies have discretion as to whether to clarify clerical mistakes, that discretion is not unlimited–and that failing to clarify an obvious mistake may be an abuse of discretion. It’s a ruling that should be cheered by small government contractors.
Here’s one you don’t see every day: a contractor, complaining that the government was unfairly holding it to outdated pricing, attempted to protest its own award.
No dice, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the protest on jurisdictional grounds.
A company’s blanket purchase agreement with the U.S. Forest Service was not a “contract,” meaning that the company had no ability to file a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for an alleged improper termination of the BPA.
In dismissing the complaint on technical grounds, the Court’s message to the terminated company was, in essence, “tough luck.”
In a recent case, a federal court held that a procuring agency properly downgraded an offeror’s proposal because the proposal was ambiguous as to how much of the contract work the offeror intended to subcontract.
According to the Court, even though the amount to be subcontracted was small in any event, the ambiguity meant that the procuring agency reasonably questioned whether the offeror understood the requirements of the solicitation.
The FAR’s threshold for meeting the so-called “Rule of Two” for small business set-asides is “purposefully low,” according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In Adams & Associates, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-731C (2013), the Court rejected a challenge to a small business set-aside, holding in part that a contracting officer need not conduct a thorough responsibility evaluation of prospective small business offerors before issuing a set-aside.
As many service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses have discovered, the VA CVE believes that so-called “right of first refusal” provisions prevent veterans from freely selling or transferring their ownership interests. Because such transfer restrictions are commonplace in standard corporate bylaws and operating agreements, countless SDVOSBs have been denied VA CVE verification for including them.
Those days may be over.
In a decision released to the public late last week, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the VA OSDBU had erred by sustaining a SDVOSB eligibility protest on the basis of the company’s right of first refusal provision. That decision, Miles Construction, LLC v. United States, No. 12-597C (2013), also includes other important rulings on the scope of “unconditional” ownership and the VA OSDBU’s evaluation of SDVOSB eligibility protests.