The GAO ruled recently that an awardee under a multiple-award IDIQ contract did not have standing the protest the agency’s selection of another awardee.
The decision highlights one of the main tenets of government contracting law: competition is in the government’s interest, and a protest that seeks to reduce competition to the benefit of the protestor could, in a case like this, be thrown out.
According to the GAO, a business qualifies as small for purposes of a task order competition under a Governmentwide Acquisition Contract so long as the business was small for purposes of the underlying GWAC, and the Contracting Officer does not request size recertification in connection with the task order. And even if recertification is required for the task order, the operative date to determine small business status is the date of the task order offer–not the date the task order is awarded.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO and SBA both weighed in on the question of small business size status for task order competitions, providing some helpful clarity on this often-confusing topic.
A contractor was eligible for award of a small business set-aside task order because the contractor was “small” as of the date of its task order proposal–even though the contractor outgrew the size standard by the time the task order was awarded.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that a contractor may qualify for the award of a set-aside task order based on the date of its initial proposal, even in cases where the agency is prohibited from taking small business credit for the award.
The GAO sustained a protest of the award of a GSA Schedule task order because the labor categories awarded under the task order were outside the scope of the awardee’s underlying GSA Schedule contract.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the awardee’s GSA Schedule labor category–management analyst–did not align with the task order solicitation’s requirement for research analysts, general consultants, and legal administrative specialists. As a result, the task order award was improper.
The GAO lacked jurisdiction to consider the protest of a “bridge” task order valued under $10 million, even though the original order related to the bridge exceeded the $10 million threshold.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that it had no legal basis to consider the value of the original order in determining whether it had jurisdiction to decide a protest related to a bridge order.
When issuing task order solicitations under unrestricted multiple award contracts, procuring agencies are not required to apply the so-called “rule of two” and set aside task orders for small businesses.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO–over the objections of the SBA–held that agencies “may,” but need not, set aside task orders under multiple-award contracts. The GAO’s decision essentially overturns a 2008 decision in which the GAO held that the rule of two does require agencies to set aside task orders.
The GAO’s jurisdiction over task order protests turns on whether the award price of the task order exceeds $10 million–not whether the protester’s proposed price exceeds $10 million.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that it lacked jurisdiction over a task order protest because the award price was under $10 million, even though the protester had proposed a price of approximately $11.4 million.