As a general rule, when it comes to compliance with a solicitation’s size standard, what matters is the size of the entity at the time it submits its initial offer per 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a). This is something we’ve seen several times before in other cases. However, that is just the general rule, and there are several exceptions that can change things greatly. Indeed, when it comes to compliance with SBA’s joint venture requirements, we noted earlier this year (in a decision that preceded the one we discuss in this post) and before that such is determined at the time of final proposal revisions as opposed to the initial bid. Recently, a mentor-protégé joint venture learned the hard way via a decision from the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that the initial offer size rule doesn’t change this requirement. Today, we’ll explore that decision.
Continue readingTag Archives: final proposal revisions
Ostensible Subcontractor Affiliation Can’t Be “Fixed” After Final Proposals
Affiliation under the ostensible subcontractor rule is determined at the time of proposal submission–and can’t be “fixed” by later changes.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearing and Appeals confirmed that a contractor’s affiliation with its proposed subcontractor could not be mitigated by changes in subcontracting relationships after final proposals were submitted.
GAO: Oral Final Proposal Revisions Were Permissible
An agency did not act improperly by allowing for oral final proposal revisions, rather than permitting offerors to submit written FPRs following discussions.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that–at least in the context of a task order awarded under FAR 16.505–an agency could validly accept oral revisions to offerors’ proposals.
GAO: Unequal Opportunity To Revise Pricing Was Improper
An agency acted improperly by inviting the ultimate contract awardee to revise its pricing, but not affording that same opportunity to a competitor–even though the awardee didn’t amend its pricing in response to the agency’s invitation.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, merely providing the awardee the opportunity to amend its pricing was erroneous, regardless of whether the awardee took advantage of that opportunity.
GAO: Agency Need Not Perform Calculations For Offeror
An agency ordinarily is not required to perform calculations to determine whether an offeror’s proposal complies with a solicitation’s requirements, according to the GAO.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO rejected the protester’s argument that, in determining whether the proposal satisfied certain requirements, the agency should have used the information in the proposal to perform certain calculations. Continue reading
Nonmanufacturer Rule: Post-Proposal Substitutions Don’t Work
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.
Ostensible Subcontractor Affiliation: SBA Must Review Final Proposal
To determine whether ostensible subcontractor affiliation exists between a prime contractor and its subcontractor, the SBA must use the prime contractor’s final proposal revision.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals overturned an SBA Area Office affiliation determination that did not contemplate an offeror’s final proposal.