In a best value procurement, being roughly as good as the competition and offering a slightly lower price doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll win the contract. Such was the case for DynCorp, which offered a lower price and a comparable CPARS score to the incumbent, L-3 Communications. When DynCorp lost the re-competition for Air Force logistics support, they protested at GAO. But savviness on the part of the agency saved the award. Continue reading “Contracting Officers: Here’s How to Evaluate Past Performance When It’s the Critical Factor”
Federal contractors often hire former agency employees. But rules exist that can place limitations on the business activities of past officials who seek to work with the agency by which they were previously employed. So what happens when a bidder thinks that a competitor has an unfair advantage because it has hired such a former official? A recent protest decision sheds some light on how agencies and GAO proceed when facing such a perceived conflict of interest. Continue reading “Concerned About a Perceived Conflict of Interest? Know This Before You Protest.”
Sometimes multiple contractors earn spots on Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which allow for an undetermined quantity of supplies or services during a fixed period of time, as outlined in FAR. But what happens when winning contractors have reservations about the competitors who earn contracts alongside them? DaeKee Global Co. found itself in such a situation, and reacted by protesting the terms of the solicitation. Read on to learn how GAO and the COFC responded to such protests, and what this means for contractors concerned about their bedfellows in IDIQ contracts. Continue reading “Don’t Approve of Your Competitors in a Multiple Award IDIQ Contract? Know This Before You Protest.”
After the proposal due date, the rule is that late changes or revisions are not accepted, with certain narrow exceptions spelled out in regulation. However, GAO has carved out its own exception when key personnel become unavailable. Such was the case when the YWCA of Greater Los Angeles protested a recent Labor Department award. GAO held that after proposal submission, an agency cannot accept a replacement for a key person who becomes unavailable without opening discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. The case highlights some of issues that arise for offerors when personnel changes occur after proposals are submitted. Continue reading “What Happens When There Are Changes to an Offer After the Submission Deadline?”
In two recent cases, disappointed contractors protested when agencies failed to request clarifications or open discussions. Both Defense Base Services and Level 3 argued that the issues with their proposals could have been remedied if given the chance. GAO denied both offerors’ protests. Yet when Level 3 persisted at the COFC, the judge concluded that an agency’s failure to request clarifications constituted an abuse of discretion. The cases illustrate the difference in the way GAO and the COFC view clarifications and discussions, and shed insight for offerors under similar circumstances.
An offeror protested an award by the U.S. Forest Service when the agency’s solicitation appeared to favor a competitor, but the protest was denied at GAO. The Simplex Aerospace decision, in comparison to the recent case of PSI, raises the question of whether disappointed contractors are better served by filing protests with GAO or the Court of Federal Claims. Does the decision of where to file really mean the difference between a win and a loss in the world of Government contracts?
In a recent case, the Army got dinged in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) despite – indeed, because of – the agency’s efforts to correct a problematic procurement. 58 offerors bid for the Army’s recompete of its Army Desktop Mobile and Computing contract vehicle, but only 9 proposals were deemed technically acceptable. When 21 of the disqualified bidders protested, the Army took “corrective action.” It reopened the competition, allowing all offerors to submit revised proposals and new prices. But the COFC found that the proposed corrective measure was overbroad. The court’s ruling demonstrates that agencies need to tailor corrective action to procurement’s unique problems.
Sometimes the Government seeks the best overall value, and at times simply lowest cost. But even when low price is determinative, the bidder must still meet minimum technical qualifications. In a recent case, Level 3 Communications lost a major contract with the Dept. of Defense to Verizon, whose bid exceeded theirs by nearly $40 million. Level 3 was disqualified for what it thought were trivial reasons. When Level 3 protested, it got no relief from GAO, but the Court of Federal Claims came to their rescue.
As a recent big acquisition by the Department of Education (ED) for IT services shows, GAO takes the integrity of the procurement system very seriously. The case sheds light on how agencies and contractors should respond when they believe the integrity of the procurement process may be threatened. Specifically, contractors may need to self-report breaches of the integrity rules, affected competitors need to act promptly to preserve their rights, and agencies must investigate problems and take appropriate action to ensure a fair procurement.
When the Department of Homeland Security tried to migrate its IT support from a single contract to a series of task orders, they created quite the quagmire. From go, DHS’ process for evaluating offerors’ technical capabilities was unusual, and when contracts were awarded, disappointed contractors moved to protest. Yet when it came to light that the agency had altered evaluation documents once protests were underway, GAO swiftly intervened.