Tag Archives: standing

Back to Basics: Interested Parties

Posted on by

Imagine you’ve submitted a bid for a procurement that you believe your company is a shoo-in for. Nobody comes close to the experience and skills your company brings to the table. A while later, you learn that the new company down the street was awarded the contract. There clearly must be a mistake. The awardee doesn’t have half the experience your company has in this industry. Feeling wronged, you decide to file a bid protest questioning the award at the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Your lawyer informs you that a bid protest may be dismissed if the protester doesn’t qualify as an interested party. But you were an actual bidder who should have been awarded the contract. Of course you’re an interested party—right?

Continue reading →

No Protesting Canceled Contracts, Says COFC

Posted on by

Often contractors will protest an award, then learn that the contract at issue was cancelled by the government due to corrective action. When that occurs, contractors of course feel as if their concerns were not resolved, or the protested other parties were let off the proverbial hook. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently explained that if that happens, there is no procurement left to protest, even if there are related research and development projects or actions continuing within the Government.

Continue reading →

Federal Circuit Decision: Slightly Opens Protest Door to Non-Offerors

Posted on by

Lately, we’ve seen a boom in protests being brought to the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in lieu of protests brought at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). And it appears that the recent decision in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, 2023-1970 (June 7, 2024) may have just set the course for even more. But the case here didn’t start with an offeror under a solicitation. Instead, it was brought by a commercial software company, Percipient.AI, Inc. (Percipient), who challenged the government’s acquisition of custom software at the Court of Federal Claims and then landed right in the lap of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

Continue reading →

GAO Rules on GSA Schedule Contracts: Size Usually Stays, 8(a) Status Doesn’t

Posted on by

Does 8(a) status remain in place for the duration of GSA Schedule contracts? GAO says no.

In MIRACORP, Inc., B-416917 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 2, 2019), the incumbent contractor for administrative support services sought by the Department of Energy, protested the Department’s evaluation and award of a delivery order to RiVidium, Inc., an 8(a) small business. GAO dismissed the protest, saying that the protester–which had graduated from the 8(a) program–lacked standing because it wasn’t eligible for the 8(a) set-aside order.

Continue reading →

I Fought the Law, and the Law Won? Standing Issues Prevent Claim of Agency’s Rulebreaking

Posted on by

As we discussed in July 2017, Timberline Helicopters, Inc. has been involved in ongoing litigation regarding the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s (a.k.a. “BLM”) procurement of helicopter flight services to aid in fire-fighting and fire-suppression missions, services essential now more than ever.

Most recently, in Timberline Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-1474C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 14, 2018), the Court of Federal Claims held that Timberline no longer had standing to bring its claims.

Continue reading →

Large Business Ineligible For SDVOSB Verification Protest, Says Court

Posted on by

A large business couldn’t demonstrate that it was eligible to pursue a bid protest challenging a VA SDVOSB sole source contract award.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that a protester, which was a large business under the NAICS code assigned to the SDVOSB sole source contract, had not demonstrated standing to challenge the contract award. The sole source contract in question wasn’t just any contract, either–but a contract to oversee the VA’s verification process for SDVOSBs and VOSBs.

Continue reading →

No Size Appeal If Outside Competitive Range, Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

An unsuccessful offeror lacked the ability to file a valid SBA size appeal involving the size status of a competitor, because the unsuccessful offeror was eliminated from the competitive range–and its elimination had been upheld in a GAO bid protest decision.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that an offeror that cannot possibly be awarded the contract ordinarily lacks standing to file a size appeal.

Continue reading →