Protest

Subscribe to Protest via RSS

On November 13, 2013, GAO reaffirmed its view that normalization of costs is impermissible in acquisitions where offerors’ approaches are not required to be the same. In AXIS Management Group LLC, B-408575 (Nov. 13, 2013), the Department of the Interior’s (“the Agency”) decision to normalize offerors’ labor hours and labor mixes was found to be unreasonable because the Agency ignored the unique approach proposed by each of the offerors.  The acquisition sought laboratory operational support at the National Water Quality Laboratory (“NWQL”) using an indefinitely delivery, indefinite quantity contract.  Technical merit was identified as significantly more important that the total evaluated price.  Offerors’ price proposals were to consist of unit prices for two contract line items, one for front desk support and the other for information technology support, and to provide proposed “labor categories, number of hours and hourly rates for three CLINS: (1) laboratory support, (2) support services support, and (3) quality assurance labor categories,” and to ensure that they priced all of the task descriptions identified in the Solicitation.  Historical staffing levels, but not staffing estimated or annual labor hour requirements, were disclosed in the Solicitation.  The historical information identified staffing for only 12 of the 26 identified labor categories.
Continue Reading Equal Doesn’t Always Mean Fair

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

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) serves as a reminder on the limits a contractor faces in protesting task and delivery order awards. In MORI Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-671C (2013), the COFC dismissed the pre-award bid protest by MORI, the incumbent contractor, for lack of jurisdiction because the protest challenged the Government’s decision to obtain services through a task order competition under an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (“GWAC”) rather than through a General Services Administration (“GSA”) Schedule contract.
Continue Reading Non-Protestable Task Order Procurement Decision Shuts Out Incumbent Contractor

1. Repeal of Sunset Dates for Protest Authority Over Certain Task Orders

Effective September 3, 2013, FAR 16.505 was amended to eliminate the sunset dates for protests against the issuance of an order under a task-order or delivery-order contract in excess of $10 million by the DoD, NASA and the Coast Guard. Previously, the FAR stated that the authority to bring such a protest would expire on September 30, 2016 and made no distinctions as to which agency the rule applied. The new rule now expressly states that there is no such expiration date for protests against the placement of an order by or on behalf of the DoD, NASA and Coast Guard. However, for the time being, the September 2016 sunset date remains for other agencies. (FAR Case 2013-11).Continue Reading Details: Highlights from the August & September 2013 Federal Register

By: Anne Perry

While the number of protests has steadily increased over the past five years, the success rate for protesters in Fiscal Year 2011 was at its lowest during that time. GAO reported to Congress its Bid Protest Statistics for Fiscal Year 2011 on November 15, 2011 and it reflects a bit of a tougher year for protesters but no real significant changes from last year.Continue Reading Protests Rise; Winners Fall: GAO Releases Its Latest Protest Statistics

By W. Bruce Shirk

We’ve previously complained about the FAR Council’s tendency to take too much time to issue rules that entail consideration of complex subject matter, as indicated, for example, by the 13 years during which the Council dallied before issuing final rules for commercial off the shelf items, discussed here.  Recent events suggest, however, that there may be good reason for the Council’s dilatory behavior because, as it turns out, when the Council does move quickly in response, say, to a legislative change, it tends to come up with the wrong answer.
 Continue Reading Who’s In Charge? The GAO, the FAR Council, and Jurisdiction Over Task Order Bid Protests

By W. Bruce Shirk and Kerry O’Neill

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ (“COFC”) decision in Jacobs Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-180C, 2011 WL 2044581 (Fed. Cl. May 26, 2011) (“Jacobs Technology”) does double duty, affirming once again the availability of the COFC as a convenient forum for aggrieved offerors challenging a resolicitation and providing us a useful primer on the perennial issues of jurisdiction, ripeness, standing, and agency discretion in the context of pre-award protests.
 Continue Reading “Give Me Your Huddled Masses”: COFC Still Beckons To Protesters

By John W. Chierichella

B&P is a precious resource, a pool of investment dollars. Used wisely, B&P can perpetuate one’s existing position in the market, grow existing product lines, and expand into new fields of endeavor. The prudent use of B&P can be the difference between achieving short, intermediate and/or long term business goals and failing to do so. All too often, however, companies can fall into patterns of conduct that effectively vitiate that investment.
 Continue Reading 10 Ways To Waste Your B&P

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

By Laura Durity

A well-known adage advises: “To be early is to be on time, to be on time is to be late, to be late is unacceptable.”  Too often, however, this warning goes unheeded by contractors submitting proposals.  Despite countless graphic illustrations of the consequences of missed deadlines, contractors continue to submit proposals within minutes of deadlines. Given that agencies, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c), will reject late proposals out of hand with very few exceptions, cutting it too close can be a big mistake.
 Continue Reading Why Delay? Submit Proposals Early