Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'tom temin'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 9 results

  1. After the proposal due date, the rule is that late changes or revisions are not accepted, with certain narrow exceptions spelled out in regulation. However, GAO has carved out its own exception when key personnel become unavailable. Such was the case when the YWCA protested a recent Labor Department award. GAO held that after proposal submission, an agency cannot accept a replacement for a key person who becomes unavailable without opening discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. The case highlights some of issues that arise for offerors when personnel changes occur after proposals are submitted. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Sometimes the Government seeks the best overall value, and at times simply lowest cost. But even when low price is determinative, the bidder must still meet minimum technical qualifications. In a recent case, Level 3 Communications lost a major contract with the Dept. of Defense to Verizon, whose bid exceeded theirs by nearly $40 million. Level 3 was disqualified for what it thought were trivial reasons. When Level 3 protested, it got no relief from GAO, but the Court of Federal Claims came to their rescue. More at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  6. As a recent big acquisition by the Department of Education (ED) for IT services shows, GAO takes the integrity of the procurement system very seriously. The case sheds light on how agencies and contractors should respond when they believe the integrity of the procurement process may be threatened. Specifically, contractors may need to self-report breaches of the integrity rules, affected competitors need to act promptly to preserve their rights, and agencies must investigate problems and take appropriate action to ensure a fair procurement. View the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  7. 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 here.
  8. Contracts with the Federal Government represent big bucks for technology companies. According to ITDashboard.gov, government agencies spent a whopping $82.8 billion on information technology investments in FY2016, a number that’s poised to grow in the next two years. It’s no wonder, then, that technology companies take government contracts seriously. So when tech giant Palantir Technologies could not get the Army to consider its commercial IT system, they protested. And ultimately, the Court of Federal Claims decided in their favor. View the full article here.
  9. 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 View the full article here.
×