About this blog
Counting the Government as a customer is a huge win for your business, and can provide both profit and prestige. But in Government contracts, what you don’t know can hurt you. Patterns of Procurement helps contractors and their in-house counsel maneuver the tricky terrain. In the blog, Joseph Petrillo of Washington D.C.’s Petrillo &Powell, P.L.L.C, shares the latest and most significant industry cases, augmented by his unique perspective gleaned over 40+ years practicing Government Contract Law.
Entries in this blog
The Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) is a tool used by federal agencies to record their evaluations of contractors’ performance. A poor evaluation will jeopardize a contractor’s chance of winning new contract awards. Contractors can respond to poor evaluations by providing input when they feel they’ve been unfairly assessed. Yet in the recent case of CompuCraft, a successful appeal to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals found that there were limits to how completely they could correct their poor evaluation. Nonetheless, their efforts at redressing their improper negative rating provide an important template for other contractors who find themselves in similar circumstances.
CompuCraft, Inc., CBCA No., 2017., Mar. 1, 2017
When the Department of Homeland Security tried to migrate its IT support from a single contract to a series of task orders, they created quite the quagmire. From go, DHS' process for evaluating offerors' technical capabilities was unusual, and when contracts were awarded, disappointed contractors moved to protest. Yet when it came to light that the agency had altered evaluation documents once protests were underway, GAO swiftly intervened.
View the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
More at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
In a recent case, the Army got dinged in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) despite – indeed, because of – the agency’s efforts to correct a problematic procurement. 58 offerors bid for the Army’s recompete of its Army Desktop Mobile and Computing contract vehicle, but only 9 proposals were deemed technically acceptable. When 21 of the disqualified bidders protested, the Army took “corrective action.” It reopened the competition, allowing all offerors to submit revised proposals and new prices. But the COFC found that the proposed corrective measure was overbroad. The court’s ruling demonstrates that agencies need to tailor corrective action to procurement’s unique problems.
To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
An offeror protested an award by the U.S. Forest Service when the agency’s solicitation appeared to favor a competitor, but the protest was denied at GAO. The Simplex Aerospace decision, in comparison to the recent case of PSI, raises the question of whether disappointed contractors are better served by filing protests with GAO or the Court of Federal Claims. Does the decision of where to file really mean the difference between a win and a loss in the world of Government contracts?
The Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) allows agencies to rate the contractors with which they do business. A poor CPARS rating is a fairly serious matter for contractors, and can impair them from getting future contracts. Fortunately, contractors who feel they’ve unfairly received a negative review can file a claim under the Contract Disputes Act. But the process for attempting to correct a negative rating can be arduous, and relief is limited. The case of Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States of America provides a solid template of what to do – and what not to do – for contractors who find themselves in a similar situation.
Sometimes multiple contractors earn spots on Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which allow for an undetermined quantity of supplies or services during a fixed period of time, as outlined in FAR. But what happens when winning contractors have reservations about the competitors who earn contracts alongside them? DaeKee Global Co. found itself in such a situation, and reacted by protesting the terms of the solicitation. Read on to learn how GAO and the COFC responded to such protests, and what this means for contractors concerned about their bedfellows in IDIQ contracts.
- aar airlift group
- court of federal claims
- daekee global co.
- fat leonard
- federal drive
- federal news radio
- government accountability office
- government contracting
- indefinite delivery indefinite quantity
- joseph petrillo
- multiple award
- national air cargo group
- petrillo & powell
- tom temin
- u.s. navy
Statute and regulation prevent public access to contractor past performance information. That said, contractors who contest poor performance reviews in Court or at a board may unintentionally put themselves at risk to have the details of the matter released in a public decision. Such was the case for Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, whose recent protest at the COFC inadvertently lead to their performance issues becoming a matter of public record. The case serves as a cautionary tale for other contractors considering whether to contest a poor performance review.
For the last several years, the DoD has bulked up regulations aimed at detecting and preventing electronic counterfeit parts within Government contracts. Two major clauses apply these regulations to defense contractors: “Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System,” and “Sources of Electronic Parts.” Here’s a summary of the main points of each clause.