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.
Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.
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.
With less than 24 hours left until proposals were due, NIH released Amendment 9, staying the proposal deadline until August 20, 2021 at Noon Eastern. Amendment 9 says it changes very little, but the innocuous cover letter belies a major change to evaluations for Other Than Small and Emerging Large Businesses (OTSBs and ELBs).
Last night, NITAAC released Amendment 4 to the CIO-SP4 RFP. The amendment removes the language expressly restricting the use of first-tier subcontractors past performance, capabilities, and experience, which was previously added by Amendment 3. Let’s take a closer look.
A recent court case details the aftermath of a bid protest battle lasting over four years. During that period, the agency’s requirements had changed, and the court held that the agency was required to amend its solicitation as a result.
An agency’s oral advice, given at a pre-proposal conference, did not amend the solicitation or legally bind the agency.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO reiterated that offerors rely on oral advice from agencies at their own risk–particularly when the oral advice in question appears to contradict the plain language of the solicitation.
An agency was entitled to cancel a solicitation when its needs changed–even though the anticipated changes in its needs “might be characterized as minimal.”
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that a procuring agency has broad discretion to cancel a solicitation when the agency’s anticipated needs change, and that discretion extends to cases in which the agency’s changed needs could be addressed by amending the existing solicitation.