The Construction Industry offers tremendous opportunities and challenges for any business owner. However, when your customer is the federal government, there is an extra layer of requirements that can either make or break your business. Just putting together a bid or proposal is a test of skill and attention to detail, but what comes next?
By: Lane F. Kelman
In making an award on initial proposals, is a tradeoff only between the two (2) highest-rated, highest-priced proposals appropriate? The GAO, in a recent decision,Coastal Environments, Inc., B-401889, dated December 18, 2009, provides important clarification. The decision beckons closer scrutiny of awards by unsuccessful offerors.
Contractors continue to be concerned about the impact that the filing of protests or claims will have on their past performance evaluations in negotiated procurements. While it is never a good idea to file a frivolous protest or claim, it is improper for procurement officials to downgrade past performance evaluations simply because a contractor has
The GAO announced yesterday that it had decided to sustain Boeing’s protest of the Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman (who included the European company Airbus on its team) over Boeing for the $40 billion aerial tanker contract – a contract that could ultimately be worth $100 billion. Considering the GAO’s history of denying most of
In a decision issued on April 20, 2007, but published today because of a protective order, the GAO denied a protest by Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-296741.14; B-296741.15 against the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial services at the DIA Analysis Center. Olympus challenged
The Navy recently awarded three cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to Fluor International, Inc., URS-IAP, LLC (a joint venture of URS Corporation and IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.) and Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC (a limited liability company managed by The Shaw Group) for global contingency construction. Each contract was for a base year with four one year options, and the value of each contract was approximately one billion dollars. The contractors were to provide construction and related engineering services in response to war fighting needs, global natural disasters, and humanitarian assistance.
The awards were made following a "best value" evaluation based on experience, past performance, contingency planning, management, small business utilization, and cost. Non-cost factors were considered more important than cost. A disappointed offeror, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (“KBR”), filed a GAO protest asserting that the Navy misevaluated the proposals under technical and cost factors. The GAO agreed and issued a decision sustaining the protest.Continue Reading GAO Recommends Navy Return To Square One in Award of Billion Dollar Contracts