When the SBA found a subcontractor to be affiliated with its prime contractor under the ostensible subcontractor rule, the subcontractor could not appeal the SBA’s finding to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In a recent size appeal decision, OHA held that a subcontractor lacks the ability to file a size appeal because the subcontractor is not directly affected by the size determination.
Subcontractors sometimes prefer to submit their cost or price proposals directly to the government, instead of submitting their cost or pricing information through the prime contractor. In cases where a procuring agency allows it, such independent submissions can ease a subcontractor’s concerns about disclosing sensitive information to the prime contractor.
But when a subcontractor circumvents the prime contractor and independently submits its pricing, the prime contractor is unable to review the subcontractor’s proposal to ensure that it complies with the terms of the solicitation. As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, if the subcontractor’s proposal is non-compliant, the entire team may pay the price.
A large business was tossed out of a government competition because the company’s small business subcontracting goal was substantially below the agency’s stated goal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency acted reasonably when it rated the large business as “unacceptable” for failing to propose a sufficiently high small business subcontracting goal.
The limitations on subcontracting would undergo sweeping changes under a recent SBA proposal.
On December 29, the SBA issued a proposed rule to enact the changes implemented by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013–including a thorough re-write of the way that compliance with the subcontracting limits is calculated and enforced.
When a Contracting Officer determines that subcontracting possibilities will exist under a qualifying unrestricted contract, subcontracting plans are required from all offerors other than small businesses–including entities that do not intend to issue any subcontracts.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO rejected a protester’s argument that the subcontracting plan requirement is to be determined on an “offeror by offeror” basis, and held that the requirement to provide a subcontracting plan is broadly applied.
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.
Absent an express prohibition in the solicitation, the experience of a proposed subcontractor may be considered by an agency in determining whether an offeror meets the solicitation’s experience requirements.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that the experience of a proposed subcontractor could be considered in an agency’s evaluation because the solicitation did not prohibit the agency from considering the subcontractor’s experience.