In last week’s edition of the SmallGovCon Week In Review, we referenced a FAR update that has important ramifications for prospective small business government contractors. This rule is potentially important enough that we figured it deserved its own stand-alone SmallGovCon post.
So what’s so important about this new rule? In a nutshell, it clarifies that offerors must be registered in SAM at the time of bid submission to be considered for an award.
GAO’s bid protest regulations provide strict timelines for filing a protest.
Typically, a protest challenging an award must be filed within 10 days after the basis of the protest is known or should have been known. There is an exception to this rule for protests filed after a debriefing, but only when a debriefing was required by the FAR. As one contractor recently discovered, where a debriefing is not required, GAO’s bid protest regulations are not nearly as forgiving.
As we forge into the second half of May, those of us around the Lawrence, KS are are preparing for a nice weekend full of beautiful weather and outdoor fun. But our weekend plans won’t stop us from bringing you the top stories from around the country in this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review.
This week’s edition brings you a look at the possible hold put on DISA’s RFP, False Claims Act allegations leading to a $2.25M settlement, a company forced to dispose of its yacht and pay a hefty fine, and much more.
Under a new FAR provision effective in February 2016, the Government typically will not enter into a contract with any corporation that has an unpaid Federal tax liability that is not being contested or timely repaid. The same new FAR provision prohibits the Government, in most cases, from awarding a contract to a company recently convicted of a Federal felony.
The new FAR provision requires a corporate offeror to represent whether it has any unpaid tax liabilities or recent felony convictions. If the answer to either question is “yes,” the Government cannot award a contract unless it has first considered suspension or debarment of the offeror, and determined that suspension or debarment is unnecessary to protect the Government’s interests.
In a recent GAO review of three agencies’ use of bridge contracts, the agencies in question had “limited or no insight into their use of bridge contracts.”
According to a recent GAO report, a lack of effective guidance for the use of bridge contracts contributed to potential misuse–such as several so-called “bridge” contracts that were longer than three years in duration.
Compliance with the limitations on subcontracting are not adequately being monitored by the contracting officers responsible for 8(a) contracts, according to a recent GAO report.
After reviewing a representative sample of ten 8(a) contracts, the GAO determined that contracting officers effectively monitored subcontracting limit compliance on two of those contracts. In other cases, agency contracting officers failed to effectively monitor compliance, even in situations presenting a heightened risk of potential violations–such as where ineligible incumbents were serving as subcontractors.