Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cofc'.
Found 10 results
-
When the Department of Defense (DoD) sought restrictions on bid protests, Congress made them commission a study to validate their case. That study, authored by the RAND Corporation, looks at bid protests during the 9-year period from 2008-2016. The study indicates a significant increase in the number of bid protests over that time period. That trend alone bolsters the DoD’s case. But a further look at the extensive data from RAND’s study suggests otherwise, and provides critical insights for Defense contractors. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement. -
It sounds simple. In Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurements, the agency determines the best value proposal by identifying those that are technically acceptable and then selecting the one with the lowest price. But there’s a wrinkle when this technique is used for a cost-reimbursement contract. Smartronix’s recent protest at GAO illustrates that proposing the lowest cost doesn’t always win you the contract, even when you’re technically acceptable. Specifically, contractors if the proposed cost is too low, the Government can adjust it upwards. Read on to learn more about this problem and how to avoid it. To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
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. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
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. To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
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. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
In the case of Veterans Technology, LLC and MDW Associates, LLC (MDW), small business size status was endangered by a high level of subcontracting with a small business. The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) applied a rule of thumb to disqualify an awardee as a small business. The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) intervened and reversed the determination. This case illustrates two important issues: (1) Size determinations are subject to SBA rules, and sometimes principles not in those rules that are adopted by SBA’s OHA. (2) If an adverse size determination leads to loss of a contract award, the COFC can review the decision, and if warranted, overturn it. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
In two recent cases, disappointed contractors protested when agencies failed to request clarifications or open discussions. Both Defense Base Services and Level 3 argued that the issues with their proposals could have been remedied if given the chance. GAO denied both offerors’ protests. Yet when Level 3 persisted at the COFC, the judge concluded that an agency’s failure to request clarifications constituted an abuse of discretion. The cases illustrate the difference in the way GAO and the COFC view clarifications and discussions, and shed insight for offerors under similar circumstances. Read the full article at 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? Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
-
Does An Agency's "Corrective Action" Have Any Limits?
Joseph Petrillo posted a blog entry in 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. -
If a judge at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals makes a decision with a monetary award against the Government (i.e. the Government has to pay), can the Government negotiate payment terms (such as a contractor agreement not to file any other actions regarding the dispute)? Or does the Government just have to pay or face repercussions? If the Govt must pay, what actions might the contractor take against the Government to enforce the decision and obtain payment? See https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi47JzX7_TQAhWKjlQKHfPhDqYQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cafc.uscourts.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fopinions-orders%2F11-5015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEcZaoI13NwgGCcgJTgUQ90kpcluA&sig2=Toz2Jo8K44P5ZE4uj25oJg pages 12 & 13.
