A SDVOSB was improperly downgraded for not identifying its subcontractors in its proposal, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Coburn Contractors, LLC, B-408279.2 (Sept. 30, 2013), the GAO held that the VA improperly applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring that the protester identify its subcontractors, because according to the solicitation, a subcontractor list was only required at the task order level.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task-order competition under a government-wide acquisition contract.
In MORI Associates, Inc., No. 13-671C (2013), the Court held that it lacked authority to consider whether an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task order competition under a GWAC–rather than under the GSA Schedule–was improper.
A Contracting Officer must designate the NAICS code which best describes the principal purpose of the product or service being acquired, right?
Not always. As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, when it comes to picking a NAICS code for a GSA Schedule task order, a Contracting Officer’s choices can be quite limited–and the “best” NAICS code might not be chosen.
If a contractor ends up on the losing end of a SBA size protest, the contractor has the right to appeal to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. The problem is that SBA OHA size appeals can take months. A contracting officer may be unwilling to wait, and simply award the contract to the next company in line.
Neither the FAR nor the SBA’s regulations require the contracting officer to suspend award or performance pending SBA OHA’s decision. However, as a recent case demonstrates, if the SBA OHA appeal has a reasonable likelihood of success, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may issue an injunction prohibiting the procuring agency from awarding the contract pending the result of the SBA OHA size appeal.
The GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction typically does not extend to reviews of contract modifications.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, Cornische Aviation & Maintenance, LTD, B-405013.4 (Jan. 25, 2013), the GAO held that the protester’s allegations regarding a contract modification were not within the scope of the GAO’s bid protest function. The Cornische Aviation GAO bid protest decision demonstrates the GAO’s limited ability (or willingness, depending on one’s point of view) to decide bid protests involving contract modifications.
An agency must identify weaknesses or deficiencies in an offeror’s proposal when the agency conducts discussions as part of a task order competition, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, B-407474, B-407493 (Jan. 7, 2013), the GAO held that a procuring agency erred by failing to inform an offeror of two weaknesses or deficiencies in its proposal. The GAO concluded that discussions must include this information even when the procurement is a task order competition conducted under FAR part 16.
It sounds like a tale from Bizarro World: under a recent Department of Homeland Security solicitation, a small business received a “Neutral” score for the small business participation factor, while its large competitor was awarded a “Good” score for the same factor.
One might think that the GAO would sustain a bid protest, especially because the small business in question planned to self-perform nearly two-thirds of the contract work. Think again. The GAO denied the protest, holding that under the solicitation, offerors could only receive small business participation credit for subcontracting to small businesses, not for self-performing at the prime contract level.