A contractor recently learned the hard way that if you open an email from an agency regarding a debriefing, you must read it closely and in its entirety, or you may face the consequence of missing the time to protest the agency’s action.
Continue Reading You’ve Got Mail—A Lesson on Timeliness for Bid Protests
The GAO’s recent decision in K&K Industries, Inc. reinforces for disappointed offerors that once the government unequivocally states that a debriefing has concluded, the clock has started ticking on the time to file a protest. Notably, this can be true even if the parties continue discussing the offeror’s proposal.
On September 28, 2021, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) notified K&K Industries, Inc. (K&K) that it had awarded Blinderman Construction, Co. (Blinderman) a contract involving the design and renovation of a historic barracks building in Fort Riley, Kansas. This notice also informed K&K that the company had a right to request a debriefing. K&K timely requested the debriefing and asked that the debriefing include a redacted copy of the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).
Continue Reading When Exactly Did My Debriefing End?
In a typical bid protest, the protester argues that its proposal should have been evaluated more favorably or that its competitors should have received a less favorable evaluation. However, in a recent bid protest, the protester turned those arguments on their head, instead arguing that its proposal was so poor that the government owed the protester an opportunity to remedy its shortcomings.
The solicitation called for awards to be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff. With regard to price, the solicitation called for consideration of both price realism (whether a price is too low) and price reasonableness (whether a price is too high). After proposals were submitted, the Army conducted multiple rounds of discussions with offerors to provide them an opportunity to clarify and improve the proposals. During those discussions, the Army issued more than 100 evaluation notices (EN) to the protester, DynCorp, noting issues with its proposal, including 39 related to price. Ultimately, DynCorp was not awarded a contract because its proposal received lower technical ratings than its competitors and its prices were the highest of all offerors.
Continue Reading Recent Federal Circuit Decision Highlights the Limitations of Discussions
By law, a GAO protest must be filed by an interested party. An interested party is an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be impacted by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. Before bid opening or the closing date for receipt of proposals, a protestor must be a prospective bidder or offeror with a direct economic interest in the procurement. This generally means that a bidder or offeror has expressed an interest in competing and is capable of performing the type of work that the solicitation requires. After bid opening or the submission of proposals, a protestor must be an actual bidder or offeror with a direct economic interest in the procurement. This generally means a bidder or offeror who would be in line for award if the protest were sustained. A protestor who cannot receive an award if it prevails on the merits of its protest is not an interested party. In some cases, a high-priced bidder might be able to demonstrate that all lower-priced bidders are ineligible for award, thus becoming the next-in-line for award. In a “best value” negotiated procurement, the GAO determines whether a protestor is an interested party by examining the probable result if the protest is successful. This means that an actual offeror, who is not in line for award, is an interested party if it would regain the opportunity to compete if the protest is sustained.
Continue Reading Recent GAO Decision Highlights the Distinction Between Jurisdiction and Prejudice
A bid protest must allege a violation of a procurement statute or regulation. Although most protests challenge the award or proposed award of a contract, the GAO will also consider protests involving defective solicitations and other unreasonable agency actions like the cancellation of a solicitation. In certain cases, the GAO will consider protests involving the termination of a contract where the protest alleges that the government’s termination was based upon improprieties associated with the contract award (this is sometimes called a “reverse protest”). Additionally, the GAO will consider protests concerning (1) awards of subcontracts by or for a Federal agency, (2) sales by a Federal agency, or (3) procurement actions by government entities that do not fall within the strict definition of Federal agencies, if the agency or entity involved has agreed in writing to allow the GAO to decide the dispute.
Continue Reading The GAO Reaffirms That a Bid Protest Must Allege a Violation of a Procurement Statute or Regulation
As I mentioned in a recent post, the Department of Defense (DoD) is using its “other transaction” authority with increased frequency to attract non-traditional defense contractors and to capitalize on the cutting-edge technological advancements found in the commercial marketplace. Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) are not procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements and, as such, many procurement laws and regulations do not apply, including the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
Continue Reading Bid Protests: Are Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) Really Bulletproof?
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s 12th Annual Intelligence Community Legal Conference to discuss acquisition reform with some of the top government attorneys in the intelligence community. Much to my surprise, the majority of the conversation focused on bid protests and the impact that protests have on federal procurements. During my time as a government attorney defending against bid protests, I gained valuable insight into how the government works to defeat them and what contractors can to do improve their chance of success. Some of these lessons are shared below.
Continue Reading Bid Protests: An Insider’s Perspective
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to establish an electronic docketing system for bid protests. Now, four years later, there are indications that the GAO might be moving to the Electronic Protest Docketing System (“EPDS”) sometime this year. Before going live with EPDS, the GAO is implementing a pilot program in which certain protests already filed at the GAO will be moved into EPDS. The pilot program will ensure that EPDS is fully operational before it goes live and becomes the sole means for filing a bid protest at the GAO.
Continue Reading The GAO’s Electronic Docket May Be Going Live Soon!
On September 20th, the California University of Pennsylvania Government Agency Coordination Office – Procurement Technical Assistance Center is hosting a webinar on all aspects of the protest process taught by Cohen Seglias Federal Contracting Partner Maria Panichelli.
As any Federal Government contractor will tell you, today’s federal contracting market
Women in Defense, Georgia Chapter presents Cohen Seglias attorneys Maria Panichelli and Amy Kirby in a 3-part educational webinar series for WOSBs, SDVOSBs, and other small businesses.
February 22, 2017 – The Perks, Procedure, & Common Pitfalls of Federal Small Business Program Eligibility & Certification: Recording Available
March 22, 2017 – Teaming Arrangements, Joint Ventures, and Mentor-Protégé Relationships
April 19, 2017 – Protests and Size/Eligibility InvestigationsContinue Reading Doing Business with the Federal Government: A 3-Part Educational Webinar Series