Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I never experienced this scenario before so I thought it I would run by the experts. Current Prime Contractor has a relative new IDIQ under which task orders are competed, Prime has a team of subcontractors (mainly small businesses). One of the small business team members has a prime contract also performing similar work (their prime was awarded as 8a set aside & is about to end).

A task order RFP is issued under the current Prime contract, and it is for the work currently being performed by the small business sub. (i.e. the incumbent whose prime is ending in the near future). The small business logs a protest the with Government that their prime work shouldn't be competed under another prime vehicle (regardless, of whether they can potentially compete for it as a sub.). However, the subcontractor submits a bid as a sub to current prime while simultaneously protesting the RFP.

Question: Doesn't it look bad for a prime if a subcontractor (team member) logs a protest? and submits a bid simultaneously ?. Does the sub have to do submit a protest through a prime or not? My thinking is if it is the small business' incumbency work, then they should have a pretty good chance of winning again as a sub. anyway. It seems like the Government contracts shop wouldn't hold this prime and sub in a very good light moving forward. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see they have any grounds to protest. A protest has to ascert the Government did something wrong. The Government has a right to choose the re-compete vehicle.

They might be better off complaining to the Agency small business office or Agency competition advocate about the Agency deciding to move the work from a small business to a Large business IDIQ holder. They might win some support from SB office if they are 8(a) or one of the other socioeconomic groups. I see no issue with their staying in play as a sub on the IDIQ task order proposal while protesting their loss of a chance to win a prime contract. I never hold a company fighting to keep its business in a bad light unless they lie about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scenario:

There is a multiple award IDIQ contract. Company X, a small business, is one of the contractors. Company Y is also a contractor under that IDIQ contract. Company X sometimes works as a subcontractor to Company Y under the contract.

Company X currently has a task under the contract. The task is coming to an end, and the government has decided to re-compete it. Company X objects to the re-compete of the task. Company X submits a subcontract proposal for the task to Company Y, but also protests the government's decision to recompete the task.

Is that the situation?

If so, I saw only two questions. The answers are:

1. Not necessarily, but maybe.

2. No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as the current prime small business having a regular prime contract and now they are going to compete it on a IDIQ on which he does not hold a contract. He is a sub to a contractor on the IDIQ. Awayforward will have to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never experienced this scenario before so I thought it I would run by the experts. Current Prime Contractor has a relative new IDIQ under which task orders are competed, Prime has a team of subcontractors (mainly small businesses). One of the small business team members has a prime contract also performing similar work (their prime was awarded as 8a set aside & is about to end).

A task order RFP is issued under the current Prime contract, and it is for the work currently being performed by the small business sub. (i.e. the incumbent whose prime is ending in the near future). The small business logs a protest the with Government that their prime work shouldn't be competed under another prime vehicle (regardless, of whether they can potentially compete for it as a sub.). However, the subcontractor submits a bid as a sub to current prime while simultaneously protesting the RFP.

Question: Doesn't it look bad for a prime if a subcontractor (team member) logs a protest? and submits a bid simultaneously ?. Does the sub have to do submit a protest through a prime or not? My thinking is if it is the small business' incumbency work, then they should have a pretty good chance of winning again as a sub. anyway. It seems like the Government contracts shop wouldn't hold this prime and sub in a very good light moving forward. Any thoughts?

According to awayforward, the protester is a small business prime contractor on a sole source 8(a) contract that is about to end. A relatively new MATOC currently has an RFP out for a task order to perform work that the 8(a) prime is now performing under its current prime contract.

The protester is also a subcontractor "team member" on one of the MATOC base contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume we are talking about a GAO protest (the sub can always attempt redress through other agencies). Seems to me that the sub can protest award to the prime as a violation of its contract if the sub is legally entitled to award of the task order under its 8(a) contract (no opinion on the merits of the claim, just that it is the basis of the protest) provided the sub can get over the jurisdictional hurdle of 41 USC 4106(f):

(f) Protests.--
(1) Protest not authorized.--A protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except for--
(A) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued; or
(B) a protest of an order valued in excess of $10,000,000.
(2) Jurisdiction over protests.--Notwithstanding section 3556 of title 31, the Comptroller General shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a protest authorized under paragraph (1)(B).
(3) Effective period.--Paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not be in effect after September 30, 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume we are talking about a GAO protest (the sub can always attempt redress through other agencies). Seems to me that the sub can protest award to the prime as a violation of its contract if the sub is legally entitled to award of the task order under its 8(a) contract (no opinion on the merits of the claim, just that it is the basis of the protest) provided the sub can get over the jurisdictional hurdle of 41 USC 4106(f):

wvanpup: Your post doesn't make sense to me. By statute, a GAO bid protest may be filed by any “interested party,” 31 U.S.C. §3553(a) or any “actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract.” 31 U.S.C. §3551(2)(A)

Moreover, because of the focus on direct economic interest, GAO often requires that contractors both (1) have bid or offered and (2) be next in line for the award if the protest is sustained for them to be recognized as interested parties. Because they lack these direct economic interests, non-contractors—such as concerned citizens and potential subcontractors on federal contracts—are not interested parties who can bring GAO bid protests.

What Awayforwrd describes the old Prime Contractor is protesting the work being moved out of their Set Aside Business concern to Full/Open. Coincidentally, they're a subcontractor to the new or potential Prime Contractor.

I don't think it's wrong or poor form for a contractor, especially a small business concern to try to keep their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not heard from the original poster for almost two weeks. We have not received a clear explanation of the situation, which I requested more than a week ago. There is no reason to bother with this any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FARFETCHED

Perhaps I was not as clear as I thought I was. I agree with you about the nature of the question: "What Awayforwrd describes the old Prime Contractor is protesting the work being moved out of their Set Aside Business concern to Full/Open. Coincidentally, they're a subcontractor to the new or potential Prime Contractor."

I had two points:

1. It seems to me that "Old Prime" becomes an interested party because it is a prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract, similar to a protest that a proposed contract modification is a cardinal change/outside the scope of the contract and should be processed as a new acquisition. (As Vern suggests, this is now academic and I have not researched the question.) I wonder if GAO would consider the question one of contract administration, to be remedied under breach or constructive termination principles a la Tourncello.

2. Since the protest is against the issuance of a task order, is GAO jurisdiction precluded by 41 USC 4106(f):

(f) Protests.—

(1) Protest not authorized.— A protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except for—

(A) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued; or
(B) a protest of an order valued in excess of $10,000,000.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought there was something wrong with Old Prime filing a protest. I think it is fair for a contractor to use legal processes to retain business that it is entitled to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×