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?