obinnae

Very helpful. Thank you!

Well yes, but it's not that explicit and that's my confusion. There are a TON of SINS. It doesn't make much sense to me that I could form a CTA based on my holding an FSS and prime a contract for a SIN I have a zero experience in?

I did. It does not go down to the SIN level, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this but cannot find any specific verbiage: A solicitation is released via Schedule 70 HACS SIN. If I form a CTA, must the CTA lead hold the HACS SIN? Or, can either member of the CTA hold the SIN so long as the lead has a GSA Schedule? So would the following arrangement be legal?: CTA lead - holds schedule 70 only. CTA member - holds the HACS SIN. Any guidance? Thanks!

Well of course. Attorney says we're dead in the water :(. Was hoping for any alternative ideas. Hopefully I am not beyond help per Vern :). Thank you!!!!!

Received the following today...guessing we have zero legal recourse? Unfortunately this is consistent with the rumors we heard which were: The CO took a meeting with the unhappy vendor post award, against the govt's legal advice last week. Several days later, the CO determined there was 'new scope' that the government hadn't factored in FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR WHICH THEY HAD THE PROPOSALS TO RE-EVALUATE. But suddenly, two weeks post award and post meeting with unhappy vendor, came to realize these new requirements: " Dear XXX Since the release of (PWS) for XXX, there have been a series of changes that have necessitated the organizational restructuring and reorganization of XXX to address the new demands. As a result, the XXX PWS, as written, requires updates to also address and incorporate these new demands which are having a profound impact on how the federal government operates and YYY changes to meet the new challenges. Accordingly, XXX has determined that it is in the Agency’s best interest to terminate the award to YYY, cancel the current requirement/solicitation for XXX, and reassess the Agency’s procurement strategy. Due to the terminated award and cancelled requirement, YYY is not offering debriefings...."

GAO protest now listed as officially dismissed. Argh!

That I couldn't answer. We haven't gotten the chance to see GAO state that they don't have jurisdiction, but that is what our lawyer is saying would be the likely outcome. If off the record discussions are correct, there will be corrective action and another T4C coming. Hence one of my questions - must the govt tell us WHY they are T4C? No the protestor is not the incumbent. And we did file as an intervenor. The GAO protest was specific to the size standard concern.

Hey sorry if it wasn't clear. In summary: We received initial award last summer. SBA size protest filed. SBA size protest denied within 1 week. SBA size protest appeal filed with OHA. Before decision could be made on the appeal, corrective action taken, T4C message sent, and proposals re-evaluated. This took 1 year and initial proposals were submitted in January 2020. 1 year later. We received a re-award. SBA size protest and GAO protest filed simultaneously. SBA size protest denied within 1 week. Before GAO decision is made, rumor is corrective action coming and procurement likely to be cancelled altogether. So in summary, we won, protest denied, govt proactively took corrective action. 1 year later, we won again, protest denied again, govt likely to again take corrective action and cancel. WTF?! I understand the need for services argument completely. Just seems like a dysfunctional contracting shop could legitimately cause a contract to go on in perpetuity without competition which flies against the idea of competition in the FAR.

Hey gang. Thanks again for all the advice and guidance on this matter! It is very much appreciated! I'd like to provide some an update and some additional detail as I have some more questions for the WIFCON gurus :). 1. We were notified that we re-won the award after re-evaluation almost a year to the day of the original award. Hooray! 2. But not so fast! The same unhappy vendor that protested the initial award a year ago lodged 2 new protests immediately upon our re-award notice. In the hopes of better understanding a path forward, I'm providing some additional detail here: The protest from last summer was with SBA over a size standard concern. SBA immediately denied the protest (govt did not require a size recertification at the task order level). The unhappy vendor appealed the decision to OHA. Before the appeal could be decided, the govt cancelled for convenience. 3. Fast forward 1 year to when we re-win. This time the unhappy vendor protested the new award to both SBA (once again immediately denied) AND GAO (protesting the size standard issue). We received a stop work order while the protest plays out. 4. What we have heard off the record is that the government has told GAO they will 'take corrective action and re-evaluate procurement strategy.' This is not yet in the GAO docket but likely coming. We have heard a cancelation is imminent and the procurement will be completely tossed. There are a lot of other rumors that I will not share as they are just hearsay, but regardless, it sounds like despite being legally awarded the contract twice, and having two protests against the award denied, the government will proactively terminate the award (again). So obviously, very frustrated here and curious the opinions of the experts on the following: 1. What legal options do we have, if any? 2. Is the government required to tell us why they are cancelling the award (assuming it happens)? If you recall, last time we got a cancelation, we received zero explanation as to why and the govt would not answer calls or emails on the matter. 3. Assuming a cancelation happens, it's likely another year+ until a new solicitation is released and new award made. In the meantime, the large business incumbent (who strangely enough is NOT the unhappy vendor that is protesting nor are they backing the unhappy vendor) has been getting short term, non-competed bridge contracts since July 2018 and potentially looking at another year plus of similar bridge action. Is this in violation of the FAR in any way shape or form? Can the government just bridge and add $ to a contract in perpetuity if its contracting shop can't get a new award in place? Again, thanks so much for guidance, support, and advice! Signed, Jaded Govt Contractor

That we are!

For anyone at home waiting anxiously, update is we got yet another set of clarifying questions from the govt. I am thinking they're looking for a 'gotcha' to re-award it differently? Existing incumbent is closing in on 3 years (not an exaggeration) of sole source bridges while they try to get this awarded!

This would be even worse! They'd have seen their strengths/weaknesses and be given a chance to fix those in the re-submission. We did not receive a debrief as the contract cancellation happened relatively quickly after award. My guess is that the losers did not receive a debrief either. That would be TOO shady!

Thanks for the response...answering your points: Re: how they could terminate and then use months old proposals. They DID ask us to reconfirm our rates, but they never provided an answer as to why the initial contract award was killed. Again - that is my frustration. Perhaps everything is on the up and up (but why be so secretive about things?), but it certainly appears like someone on the fed side didn't get who they wanted, told the CO to cancel it, and is looking for way to get it to who they want. We'll see if the award goes to them in the end. Re: reaching out to the GWAC ACO, I am thinking that ship has sailed. And as stated before, in my experience, unless encouraged to do so, throwing the CO under the bus by contacting the IG/GAO or GWAC ACO and explaining the situation NEVER ends well. A pissed off CO is not good. Unfortunately, we have engaged our legal folks throughout the process. They've basically stated that unfortunately, the govt can do whatever the F they want w/ respect to terminating for convenience and they can claim whatever they want as part of the re-evaluation. We're completely at their mercy as to how they want to re-evaluate and award. Our only recourse would be to file a post award protest - which would come at a substantial cost. You're right re: probably never knowing what truly happened here :(.

Yup. We engaged legal and tried to get info out of them. They would share nothing (and frankly most of the time took months to respond to any communications). Most recent response was, and I quote: " I can assure you that '''govt agency''' is complying with the responsibilities outlined in the Procurement Integrity Act. Now you see my frustration and helplessness. Again, we're a small biz and put a LOT into the capture as this was not a small award. To have it potentially snatched away with no real explanation is tough. Really appreciate your responsiveness though, C Culham. Thank you!!!

This is very helpful. Thank you. Some additional detail - nothing publicly posted on the GAO docket, so I presume the GAO didn't force the move to re-evaluate? We have asked the CO over and over for clarity and understanding. The response has always been something to the effect of "this is an active solicitation so we can't share any details." Their hesitation to provide any details whatsoever, especially given the the abrupt termination, just raises more confusion/red flags. Completely understand our right to protest IF it is awarded elsewhere, but again the question is as a SB, do we bite off a massive legal bill when it certainly appears the govt has a winner in mind (again assuming it is awarded elsewhere). Again, my question would be - if the evaluation factors don't change, how could they determine as part of a re-evaluation that the other bidder was the fair and honest winner?

Thank you!

Oh to be clear, we are absolutely playing ball and participating in the re-submission process. We are operating in good faith, have been extremely responsive and communicative with the CO, and are hoping for the best in the end. But you know as well as I do, going to the IG = burning a bridge with that agency's contracting office for life. That's part of my frustration - there is no real recourse on my side, even if there is a lot of smoke from a lot of different angles.

Sorry. Task order under the GWAC that was terminated.

Preferring to keep this anonymous as this is an ongoing procurement, but could use some help understanding the rules around proposal re-evaluation. Situation - My company won a procurement released via GWAC. Rumors fly that the government "didn't get who they wanted." Our award is terminated for convenience before we begin support with no additional detail provided. Months of silence pass and the govt decides to re-evaluate proposal submissions and asks for some clarity on our submission, asks us to reconfirm rate validity, etc. We are unsure which other bidders received the request for clarification and/or what specific items were requested for clarification on other bids. We are extremely confident the firm that govt wanted did receive clarifying questions as well. Assuming evaluation criteria didn't change, is there any above-board way that the contract could be awarded to the 'firm they wanted' this go around? I'm assuming they will just magically correct the items that they were deficient on during the initial submission... My presumption is that the subjective nature of evaluation criteria would make it very easy for the govt to get who they want, regardless of proposals and we should see the writing on the wall? Thanks in advance for any guidance!!!! Signed, Jaded govt contractor

Vern - Thanks for this - clause 2 is obviously completely subjective and you could reasonably argue that any solicitation would be better off being full and open. Moral of the story is - if a COTR/CO wants something to go full and open - not a whole lot industry can do about it, correct?

What do you mean by prerequisite? My understanding is that there is no set and clear rule that states a certain solicitation must be set aside. There are the governmental SB set aside goals - but on a solicitation by solicitation level, its at the discretion of the CO. What would be an example of a prerequisite to require something to be set aside? I have a feeling I am just not understanding the semantics. PS - thanks for your help on this!

Understood. Thanks for your help and insights!!!

Can you explain this a little more?

What if the CO noticed the mistake and took down the spreadsheet within a day and replaced it with a clean one? Couldn't that put others who hadn't seen it at a disadvantage?