On January 2, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) provided its Annual Report to Congress with data concerning overall protest filings for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013 and a summary of the most prevalent grounds for sustaining protests during the preceding year.
Continue Reading GAO Reports FY 2013 Bid Protest Statistics
GAO Dismisses Protest Alleging Noncompliance with E-Verify Requirements
By Townsend Bourne on
In Ashland Sales & Service Co., B-408969 (Nov. 1, 2013), the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) dismissed a protest by Ashland Sales & Service Co. (“Ashland”) alleging that a contract for lightweight jackets was improperly awarded to Creighton AB, Inc. (“Creighton”) where Creighton was not enrolled in the employment eligibility verification (“E-Verify”) system at the time of award. The decision explains that E-Verify is a government web-based system that allows employers to verify the eligibility of new employees to work in the United States.
Continue Reading GAO Dismisses Protest Alleging Noncompliance with E-Verify Requirements
GAO Issues FY 2012 Bid Protest Report – Protests and Sustains Up From FY 2011
By Sheppard Mullin on
Posted in Bid Protest, GAO
On November 13, 2012 the Government Accountability Office issued its annual report to Congress regarding its bid protest activity. GAO-13-162SP, GAO Bid Protest Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2012, November 13, 2012.Continue Reading GAO Issues FY 2012 Bid Protest Report – Protests and Sustains Up From FY 2011
What Would Andy Rooney Have Said?
By Sheppard Mullin on
Posted in GAO
“Did ya ever notice” that – sometimes – the story just writes itself. On May 10, 2012, the Government Accountability Office released correspondence with the following title:
Defense Management: Actions Needed to Evaluate the Impact of Efforts to Estimate Costs of Reports and Studies, GAO-12-480RContinue Reading What Would Andy Rooney Have Said?
A New Twist On Establishing Interested Party Status At The GAO
By Sheppard Mullin on
Posted in Bid Protest, GAO
By: Townsend Bourne
In a bid protest decision regarding the propriety of agency corrective action, GAO recently carved out a new exception to its general rule that those who do not participate in a protest that engenders corrective action are not interested parties to challenge the corrective action. In North Wind, Inc.; Earth Resources Technology, Inc., B-404880.4 et al., 2011 CPD ¶ 246 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 4, 2011), North Wind, Inc. (“North Wind”) protested NASA’s initial award of a contract to Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. (“Navarro”) and subsequently raised additional challenges to the award in a supplemental protest that followed receipt of documents from the Agency. In response to North Wind’s supplemental protest, NASA decided to take corrective action. Earth Resources Technology, Inc. (“ERT”), another disappointed offeror in the competition, did not initially file its own protest challenging the award to Navarro.Continue Reading A New Twist On Establishing Interested Party Status At The GAO
Task And Delivery Order Protests: Taking Aim At A Moving Target
By Sheppard Mullin on
The saga began with the passage of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. While the Act contained a general prohibition barring bid protests of task and delivery order awards (excluding challenges to scope, period, or maximum value), it granted the GAO exclusive jurisdiction over bid protests of civilian and defense agency task and delivery order awards valued at over $10 million. The Act also included a sunset date – May 27, 2011. The reach of the Act’s sunset provision would prove to be critical in shaping the GAO’s and the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction over bid protests of civilian agency task and delivery order awards.
Continue Reading Task And Delivery Order Protests: Taking Aim At A Moving Target
The GAO Holds It Possesses Jurisdiction Over Bid Protests of Civilian Agency Task and Delivery Order Awards
By Sheppard Mullin on
Many believed that the Government Accountability Office’s (“GAO’s”) jurisdiction over bid protests of civilian agency task and delivery order awards valued at over $10 million expired on May 27, 2011. This belief was based on the fact that certain broadened jurisdiction over civilian agency task and delivery order protests granted by the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (“2008 Act”) expired on that date. With the expiration of the broadened jurisdictional grant found in the 2008 Act, many thus contended that a contractor would not be able to protest a civilian agency task or delivery order award at the GAO unless the protest alleged that the order exceeded the scope, period or maximum value of the underlying contract. Protests of Department of Defense task and delivery order awards valued at over $10 million were not similarly affected because Congress extended the GAO’s exclusive, broadened jurisdiction over these protests through the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.
Continue Reading The GAO Holds It Possesses Jurisdiction Over Bid Protests of Civilian Agency Task and Delivery Order Awards
Fixed Price Contracts – Contingencies And Assumptions Not Welcome
By Sheppard Mullin on
By Anne Perry and Kerry O’Neill
In an April 6, 2011 decision, the GAO overturned the award of a $24.6 million task order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (“BAH”), sustaining the protest of the incumbent Solers, Inc. (“Solers”). This procurement has a long and storied protest history. The Defense Information Systems Agency (“DISA”) originally awarded the contract to Solers in September 2010. BAH filed a protest, in response to which DISA took corrective action. After the reopening of discussions and evaluation of offerors revised proposals, the Agency awarded the contract to BAH, despite Solers’ technical superiority, based on BAH’s lower price and superior past performance. This time Solers protested.
Continue Reading Fixed Price Contracts – Contingencies And Assumptions Not Welcome
Making Amends: Countdown To May 27, 2011
By Sheppard Mullin on
Over the past three years, government contractors have been able to pursue bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) challenging awards of defense and civilian task and delivery orders valued at over $10 million. This expanded jurisdiction, however, is set to expire on May 27, 2011. Congress appeared to have addressed the issue in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (the “Act”) by including a provision extending the GAO’s expanded jurisdiction until September 30, 2016, but, for whatever reason, the Act captured only defense task and delivery order awards. This omission not only was strange, but it also seemed to run counter to the spirit of the original grant of task/delivery order jurisdiction. We analyzed the Act’s legislative history here and concluded that it did not provide a basis for only partially extending the GAO’s expanded jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. House of Representatives (the “House”) and the U.S. Senate (the “Senate”) introduced bills targeted at extending the GAO’s jurisdiction over civilian task and delivery order bid protests. See H.R. 899; see also S. 498.
Continue Reading Making Amends: Countdown To May 27, 2011
Has The Sun Set On GAO’s Civilian Contract Task And Delivery Order Bid Protest Jurisdiction?
By Sheppard Mullin on
With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (the “2008 Act”), Congress expanded the GAO’s jurisdiction to include bid protests in connection with civilian and defense contract task and delivery orders valued at over $10 million. See Section 843 of the 2008 Act, Pub. L. No. 110-181. Congress also included a sunset provision in the 2008 Act that limited that grant of expanded jurisdiction to 3 years – i.e., until May 27, 2011. See id. We previously discussed Section 843 of the 2008 Act and its implications here, here, and here.
Continue Reading Has The Sun Set On GAO’s Civilian Contract Task And Delivery Order Bid Protest Jurisdiction?