A quick update on CIO-SP4. NITAAC has issued amendment number 11 to CIO-SP4. It moves the deadline to August 27, and takes out some confusing language about small business teams.
Specifically, it has removed the language saying: “The small business prime must demonstrate how they will comply with the LOS by including in their Small Business Teaming Agreement the specific level of effort and how each will ensure compliance with 52.219-14.”
That is now deleted.
That is the only change of note from Amendment 11. As it was a confusing provision and had been vexing many small business teams, it’s good that NITAAC took it out. But did they have to wait until the last possible moment?
Questions about this post? Email us or give us a call at 785-200-8919.
Amendment 10 clarifies obligated dollar values, how to have subcontracted federal work counted, restrictions to contractor participation in task areas, evaluation of contractor program manager(s), establishing a static date from which to calculate the three-year look-back for corporate experience relevance, and evaluation of labor rates.
Needless to say, there is a lot of things packed into Amendment 10, and here’s the kicker, proposals are still due August 20th! With little time to digest, let alone alter, proposals in line with Amendment 10, NITAAC has left little room for offerors to catch up with the changes.
The grounds for GAO protests are numerous, ranging from vague terms in a solicitation to showing that an awardee’s proposal lacked needed information. However, they are not unlimited. One protester argued that the terms of a solicitation were inconsistent with regulations concerning mortgage insurance. Unfortunately for them, that isn’t something GAO will consider.
CIO-SP4 Amendment 7, we barely knew you. Less than a week after Amendment 7 went live, we have another amendment to dig into. What is new in this amendment? We have major changes to Other Than Small Business (OTSB) and Emerging Large Business (ELB) certifications. For small businesses, NIH is digging in its heels on consideration of CTA members.
While we are not sure how long this amendment will last, it puts small businesses behind the 8-ball.
The acronyms and terminology used in federal government contracting can be a labyrinth–one sadly devoid of David Bowie. In this post, we’ll clarify some of the common methods used for government procurements, the regulations defining them, and the terminology associated with them.
One theme they both touched on was that the Department of Defense is looking for great ideas from contractors and wants to pay well for those innovative ideas. That’s good news for federal contractors!
Thanks to all who organized the event, especially Bill Stuby with Missouri PTAC. I was able to provide an update on current issues in government contracting to a lively audience. And thanks to all who stopped by our booth to chat!
Not too many government contracting disputes make it to a federal court of appeals—the level just a step below the U.S. Supreme Court. The most notable recent examples would probably be the Federal Circuit’s decision in Kingdomware Technologies (which, as SmallGovCon readers know, was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016) and the D.C. Circuit’s decision Rothe Development (which the Supreme Court declined to consider).
But recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision of note to government contractors. In AgustaWestland North America v. United States, the Court issued guidance on what constitutes a “procurement decision” and upheld the Army’s decision to buy helicopters on a sole-source basis.