Bid Protests

Earlier this year, Geoff Orazem founded Eastern Foundry, an incubator for government contracting companies in Washington, D.C. The veteran-owned business will leverage professional service providers, coaches, mentors, and BD support teams to provide structured and personal coaching for small businesses seeking government contracts.

We had a great time meeting with Geoff and his clients in

Solicitations for government contracts come with all manner of terms, specifications, requirements, etc. But one feature that is certainly common to all solicitations is the deadline for submission. No matter the procurement, the solicitation will establish a time and date by which all proposals must be received. Not surprisingly, it is the responsibility of the offeror to make sure the proposal is received by the agency prior to the deadline. A late proposal typically means a rejected proposal, so adhering to the deadline is of utmost importance. After all, you can’t win if you’re not in the game.

It is important to recognize the difference between submission and receipt. Modern solicitations provide for various acceptable methods of submitting a proposal, e.g., mail, hand-delivery, email, etc. Each method of submission comes with its own challenge that must be considered by the offeror in order to ensure the agency actually receives the proposal on time. Proposals to be submitted via email may sometimes lag due to large attachments. Couriers are sometimes delayed getting entrance onto a government installation. And sometimes, government agencies utilize mail sorting facilities which add delays to the delivery process.Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: When Delivery Doesn’t Actually Mean Receipt

Bryan King, Amy Sanders and Shannon Wiley teamed up to author an alert titled, “RAC Dispute Could Have Far-Reaching Effects on Government Contracting” that was published by Bass, Berry & Sims on December 4, 2014. The article investigates the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in CGI Federal Inc., v. United States,

This week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its annual Bid Protest Report for Fiscal Year 2014. GAO is required by the Competition in Contracting Act to submit this annual report to Congress. The report contains some information which may be of interest to contractors, particularly the bid protest statistics.

According to GAO, while the number of bid protests filed increased 5% versus FY2013, the number of sustained decisions decreased quite a bit. From FY2010 through FY 2013, GAO sustained an average of 17.7% protests. The number of sustained protests fell sharply in FY2014, as less than 13% of cases were sustained.Continue Reading GAO Releases Annual Bid Protest Report: Corrective Actions on the Rise?

In government contracting, offerors are regularly evaluated in their proposed approaches to meet solicitation requirements. Occasionally, an offeror’s proposed solution is immaterial, as the offeror’s overall ability to perform the work required by a solicitation is called into question.

Whether it is inadequate financial resources, an inability to meet delivery schedules or an inability to obtain a security clearance, some offerors fail to meet general criteria of responsibility required to perform. Generally, the procuring agency can eliminate an offeror based on a determination of nonresponsibility. However, small businesses are provided a little cover.Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: Responsibility vs. Acceptability

The general rule regarding late proposals is that offerors are responsible for ensuring that their proposals reach the designated location by the time stated in the solicitation. A late proposal will not be considered unless it falls under a recognized exception in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or common law. One exception in the FAR allows for acceptance of a late proposal where some emergency or unanticipated event interrupted normal Government processes preventing it from being delivered on-time. FAR § 52.212-1(f)(4).

This particular exception was addressed recently by the Court of Federal Claims, in which the Court examined the scope of the interruption of “normal Government processes” exception.  In Global Military Mktg v. United States, No. 14-622C, (Williams, J.)(Sept. 29, 2014), the Plaintiff encountered a rather unique and unfortunate situation regarding the delivery its proposal. The Plaintiff attempted to use FedEx to make its delivery, however the region in which Plaintiff (and the FedEx facility) was located experienced a “historic rainfall event,” which caused the FAA to restrict traffic at local airports.Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: With Late Proposals, Government Caused Delays only Matter at Agency Location

We are dusting off our boots and heading to Tennessee. We’ll be at the SCS Annual Government Contracting Seminar in Oak Ridge, TN on October 28.

The conference is designed specifically for government contractors and will cover various topics relevant to the industry including compliance and proposal writing.

Our presentation, “Bid Protests and SBA Size/Status Protests: Filing and Defense Strategies” will include the following components:Continue Reading Upcoming Seminar on October 28, 2014: Bid Protests and SBA Size/Status Protests: Filing and Defense Strategies

The Court of Federal Claims recently held that a company could not rely on its affiliate’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractor status in order to comply with the solicitation. The procurement at issue involved the purchase of glucose test strips from an FSS contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the solicitation prohibited entering into the FSS blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with a non-schedule contractor. However, the Defense Health Agency (DHA) awarded the BPA to Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corp. (Abbott), who did not have the required FSS contract but its affiliate Abbott Laboratories Inc. (ALI) did. Arkray (the protester) argued that Abbott improperly relied on the FSS of its corporate affiliate to provide the strips.

The court had previously remanded the case to the DHA to determine whether Abbott could “properly hold itself out as” having an FSS as required by the solicitation. On remand, the DHA decided to proceed with the BPA award because it concluded Abbott was either acting as ALI’s agent under its FSS contract or the companies were sufficiently closely related enough to allow Abbott to rely on ALI’s FSS contract to satisfy the terms of the solicitation.Continue Reading Offeror Needs Own FSS Contract to be Eligible for FSS BPA

The government contracting industry is extremely competitive, which is not a surprise given the $500+ billion dollars in federal procurement spending up for grabs each year. This competition certainly gives government contractors ample incentive to seek out any useful information that may provide even a small advantage in their procurement activities. Bid protest decisions can be one such source of useful information, often providing valuable insight into the procurement process.

One bid protest decision may focus on a contractor’s mistakes which led to its proposal being rejected from competition, serving as a how-to-guide of sorts showing contractors what not to do. Another bid protest decision may instead highlight errors made by the agency, giving contractors a blueprint of what agency actions/inactions to look out for in their own procurements that may lead to sustainable protests. Whatever the issue, knowledgeable contractors can utilize this information to avoid missteps and properly protect their interests in the potentially lucrative government contracting space.

Another useful aspect of bid protest decisions is that some decisions, while pointing out avoidable defects in proposals, can also shine a light on obscure rules and regulations which may open up contracting avenues not otherwise considered. GAO released a bid protest decision last week which may provide an example of this notion.Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: Non-GSA Contract Holders Can Submit Offers Through a Contract Holder—If They Follow the Rules