Bid Protests

Subscribe to Bid Protests via RSS

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) posted five protest decisions today and, not surprisingly, each protest was denied. One of those decisions, Metson Marine Services, Inc., B-299705, involved Metson’s protest of the award of a contract to Seaward Services, Inc. under a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift…

In what we regard as a somewhat unusual decision by the GAO, given its reluctance to interfere with matters of agency discretion, the GAO has concluded that the Air Force failed to make reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an acquisition was suitable for an SDVOSBC set-aside.  The GAO ruled that a procuring agency is required to make reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an acquisition is suitable for a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns (SDVOSBC) before it can proceed with a small business set-aside. Under the circumstances presented in a decision issued on March 28, 2007, MCS Portable Restroom Service, B-299291, the GAO concluded that the Air Force failed to make reasonable efforts to ascertain whether this acquisition was suitable for an SDVOSBC set-aside and the protest was sustained.

The GAO reiterated that, generally, a procurement set-aside determination is a matter of business judgment within the contracting officer’s discretion, which “our Office will not disturb absent a showing that it was unreasonable.” The GAO further commented that although the use of any particular method of assessing the availability of firms for a set-aside is not required, measures such as prior procurement history, market surveys, and advice from the agency’s small business specialist may all constitute adequate grounds for a contracting officer’s decision to set aside, or not to set aside, a procurement. The assessment must be based on sufficient evidence so as to establish its reasonableness. Continue Reading Determination of Suitability of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside

As we have mentioned previously, the growing use of multiple award task order contracts in federal construction contracting, as can be seen in much of the disaster recovery work in New Orleans, is limiting the competitive opportunities for small and mid-sized construction contractors.  Unless a contractor is the recipient of one of the major task order contract awards, there is no opportunity for a contractor to compete for upcoming individual task orders and the contractor is effectively precluded from competing for potentially millions of dollars of work to be awarded over a period of years. In the past, when there were more single award contracts, if a contractor lost out to a competitor, there was always another solicitation on the horizon.  If a contractor fails to become one of those selected to compete under a multiple award task order contract, there may be no, or very little, work “waiting in the wings.”

It follows that it is important to monitor the decisions of the GAO and the courts to see what is being done to protect the rights of contractors, and we will continue to do so.  In a newly issued GAO decision, Palmetto GBA, LLC, B-299154, December 19, 2006, the Comptroller General stated that according to the legislative history of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), task and delivery-order contracts were intended to encourage the use of multiple-award, rather than single-award contracts, in order to promote an ongoing competitive environment in which each awardee would be fairly considered for each order issued.  H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-712, at 178 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2607, 2608; S. Rep. No.103258, at 15-16 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2561, 2575-76. In this regard, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to provide all awardees “fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts.”  FAR sect. 16.505(b)(1)(i).

An interesting aspect of the Palmetto case is that the GAO reiterated that a task or delivery order that precludes competition for future task or delivery orders for the duration of the contract performance period may constitute a “downselection.”  The GAO has recognized downselections in circumstances not only where all work under a contract will be foreclosed from future competition, but also where specific categories of work will be similarly foreclosed for the duration of the contract.  While the GAO did not find that “downselection” occurred in the Palmetto case, it is important for contractors to recognize that a task order award that eliminates competition for future work can be successfully protested.
Continue Reading Task Order Contractors Must be Given a Fair Opportunity to Compete for Individual Task Orders

A disappointed bidder (on an Invitation for Bids), or an offeror (on a Request for Proposals), has the option to file a protest to the agency, to the General Accountability Office (GAO), or to the United States Court of Federal Claims. It is not always easy to decide where, and whether, to file a protest and contractors need to be aware of the pitfalls. One thing is certain, it is not easy to win a protest and a great deal of deference is given to contracting officers by the GAO and by the Court of Federal Claims.  It is incumbent upon a contractor to be certain that the issue raised is not frivolous, and that prior decisions of the courts or the GAO have not already established the correctness of the government’s position.

It has been my experience that if a protest involves agency policy, it is usually a good idea to file a protest with the agency to give the Contracting Officer the opportunity to take corrective action. (See FAR 33.103 for the rules on Protests to the Agency). If a protester is dissatisfied with the result of an agency protest, the protester is still permitted to take the protest to the GAO or to the United States Court of Federal Claims. As far as taking a protest directly to the GAO is concerned, unless prior GAO decisions have shown a likelihood that the GAO will agree with your position, a GAO protest is not usually a very satisfying experience. (See FAR 33.104 for the rules on Protests to the GAO, and also see the Bid Protest Regulations issued by the GAO).  (Another useful resource is the GAO’s Descriptive Guide on Bid Protests).

The statistics made available by the GAO demonstrate how difficult it is for a protester to win. In the period from 2001 through 2005, 6,543 protests were filed (an average of about 1,300 protests per year).  See the 2005 GAO report to Congress. Of these, only 1,528 resulted in a decision and in 303 of the decided cases the protester’s position was sustained. The way the GAO sees it, this means that protesters experience a 20% success rate. Of course, 20% is not very encouraging and, in reality, the way that the GAO calculates the percentage of sustained protests is misleading. By simply comparing the number of “sustains” to the number of decided cases during the period, the GAO ignores the 5,000 cases that were not decided for one reason or another. Some of those cases were probably dismissed summarily by the GAO, others were withdrawn only to be re-filed in the Court of Claims, and some of the protesters may have simply “thrown in the towel” as a result of frustration with the process. In any event, if you compare the number of “sustains” to the number of cases filed (303 out of 6,543), the protester prevailed in less than 5% of the protests. Take your pick, 20% or 5%, neither one is very good. (In 2006, there have been 1,327 protests filed to date, and 72 have been sustained).  See the 2006 GAO report to Congress.
Continue Reading Where and Whether to File a Bid Protest