Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'GAO'.

  • 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, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
    • Recommended Reading
    • 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
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum
  • NIH NITAAC Blog
  • NIH NITAAC Blog

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 7 results

  1. GAO decision B-308969, Interagency Agreements--Obligation of Funds under an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contract, May 31, 2007 indicates that it is the responsibility of the agency to immediately issue an obligation order off an IDIQ contract meeting the amount of the required minimum purchase. My agency is often competing and awarding IDIQ contracts in the FY prior to the anticipated and advertised POP. Therefore award is often in May -August for POP start date October 1 aligning with the Fiscal Year. In this case is it really appropriate to issue a minimum order at the point of award. In actuality the appropriate FY funding doesn't even exist yet.
  2. Latvian Connection is at it again. This time GAO dropped a 2 year ban on ol' Keven. Next up, according to the decision, could be a permanent ban. http://www.gao.gov/products/B-415043.3
  3. Latavian Connections, B-413442 has just been banned from protesting for 1 year. I've personally dealt with some of these when I was in policy. Here are a few interesting tidbits. http://www.gao.gov/products/B-413442#mt=e-report
  4. The authority of the GAO to hear bid protests regarding civilian agency task and delivery orders over $10 Million will expire on Sep. 30, 2016, unless the Congress acts to eliminate or extend the sunset provision of 41 USC 4106(f)(3). I support 41 USC 4106(f)(3) as it is now written. I support the sunset provision for protests to GAO on task and delivery orders for civilian agencies. The task and delivery order ombudsman process of 41 USC 4106(g) will never become meaningful unless the sunset is allowed to occur -- and I want the ombudsman provision to become meaningful; therefore, I want the sunset to occur. Accordingly, I oppose Section 502 of H.R. 4341, Defending America’s Small Contractors Act of 2016, because Sec. 502 would eliminate the sunset. Sunsets are beautiful, don’t you think? Below is the pertinent text from H.R.4341 and 41 USC 4106: Defending America's Small Contractors Act of 2016 H.R. 4341 Sec. 502. Protecting task order competition. Section 4106(f) of title 41, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3). Orders 41 USC 4106 (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. (g) Task and Delivery Order Ombudsman. (1) Appointment or designation and responsibilities. The head of each executive agency who awards multiple task or delivery order contracts under section 4103(d)(1)(B) or 4105(f) of this title shall appoint or designate a task and delivery order ombudsman who shall be responsible for reviewing complaints from the contractors on those contracts and ensuring that all of the contractors are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for task or delivery orders when required under subsection (c). (2) Who is eligible. The task and delivery order ombudsman shall be a senior agency official who is independent of the contracting officer for the contracts and may be the executive agency’s advocate for competition.
  5. GAO will launch a new, web-based, electronic bid protest filing system, and require protestors to pay a filing fee of $350. http://www.gao.gov/legal/bid-protest-notices/about Does anyone think this will significantly affect the number or quality of GAO protests? PepeTheFrog imagines that any effects will be minimal because $350 is not much of a deterrent for filing. What does the forum think? Excerpt from GAO daily bid protest digest, 2016-04-26: "New Process Coming: This summer, GAO will establish a secure and easy-to-use web-based electronic bid protest filing and dissemination system (EPDS). EPDS will also provide automatic notice of a protest to the agency. Once it is live, all protesters will be required to use the system to file new protests, and there will be a $350.00 filing fee. Funds from the filing fee will be used to pay for the operation and maintenance of the system. This new process necessitates changes in GAO's Bid Protest Regulations found at 4 C.F.R. part 21."
  6. An Agency Level Protest was filled with our office on March 15, 2016. Yesterday, April 13, 2016, (prior to the Agency decision) the Agency received notice from the Contractor that a GAO Protest had been filled. My Question... Should a protestor file with GAO while an Agency protest is pending, is the Agency then absolved from issuing a decision? I will continue to look in Part 33 as well as 4 CFR Part 21, etc.; however, I have yet to find this scenario addressed. My gut tells me that once a protest is filled with GAO, any pending Agency decision would now be irrelevant (for lack of a better word this early in the morning).
  7. My Procurement Exec and one Attorney believe GAO recently used the so-called "10%" rule to determine a contract modification was within scope and therefore denied a protest. Neither has been able to produce anything other than their own recollection. Everything I have found in my previous and recent research indicates they are seriously mistaken. So if anyone out there has seen anything from GAO to support their statements, please post a link.
×
×
  • Create New...