Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

On-time bid proposals, not a second too late

By

Submitting your company’s bid proposal close to the deadline can be risky and have grave consequences.

The government has repeatedly rejected proposals submitted before, but received after, the deadline because of technical glitches.

In submitting a proposal for a government contract, the onus is on the contractor to ensure that its proposal is received prior to the exact time specified for receipt of proposals.  The deadlines set forth in the solicitation are strictly enforced unless: the agency receives the proposal before the contract is awarded, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition, and: (i) the proposal was submitted electronically and received at “the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for the receipt of proposals,” (ii) the proposal was “received at the Government installation” and was “under the Government’s control” before the solicitation deadline, or (iii) it was the only proposal that the Government received.  (FAR 15.208(b)(1)(i)-(iii))

This applies not only to Defense and IT contractors, but also to health care companies competing for government contracts. (See FAR 15.208(b)(1): “Any proposal, modification, or revision, that is received at the designated Government office after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is ‘late” and will not be considered.”; see also FAR 52.212-1(f)(2): “offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the Government’s office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is ‘late’ and will not be considered.” )

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=598620

Court of Appeals affirms lengthy prison sentences for men engaging in DBE fraud 

By

USDOTThe U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has announced that Joseph W. Nagle of Deerfield Beach, Florida and Ernest G. Fink, Jr. of Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania, the former owners of Schuylkill Products Inc., (SPI) had their sentences affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nagle was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment on November 30, 2015, and Fink was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment on February 24, 2016, for their roles in a massive conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Disadvantage Enterprise (DBE) program.

According to USDOT, their scheme, which lasted for over 15 years and involved over $136 million in government contracts in Pennsylvania alone, is the largest reported DBE fraud in the nation’s history.

In April 2012, after a four-week jury trial, a jury convicted Nagle on 26 charges relating to the scheme, including conspiracy to defraud USDOT, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.  Fink previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the USDOT in August 2010.

In 2014, three other former executives associated with SPI were sentenced for their roles in the scheme.

  • Romeo P. Cruz, of Westhaven, Connecticut, the former owner of Marikina Construction Corp., which operated as a front for SPI, was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment.
  • Timothy G. Hubler, of Ashland, Pennsylvania, SPI’s former Vice-President in charge of field operations, was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment.
  • Dennis F. Campbell, of Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania, SPI’s former Vice-President in charge of sales and marketing, was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI, USDOT’s Inspector General’s Office, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General’s Office, and the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/third-circuit-court-appeals-affirms-lengthy-prison-sentences-two-men-who-executed

 

What does it take to be a ‘responsive bidder’?

By

In a previous article we discussed the requirement that, if it awards a public works contract, a public entity in the State of Georgia must award the contract to the “lowest responsible and responsive bidder,” unless an exception to this requirement applies.

This article addresses what it means to be a “responsive bidder.”  While responsibleness focuses on the bidder or proposer, responsiveness focuses on the bid or proposal.  Specifically, responsiveness requires that a bid or proposal respond and conform to the requirements of the invitation for bids or request for proposals (the “Bid Documents”).

Any deviation from the requirements of the Bid Documents may be considered non-responsive.  But public entities have the discretion to waive minor deviations from the requirements of the Bid Documents.  Minor deviations are a matter of form and not of substance, or they pertain to some immaterial or inconsequential defect or variation from the exact requirement of the Bid Documents.  For example, a minor deviation may occur where a bidder fails to initial a price change, or to write the solicitation number, date, and time of bid opening on its bid envelope, or to provide incidental information requested in the bid documents, such as information about its affiliates, or to include a unit price where the unit price can be calculated by dividing the line item total by the estimated quantity.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=463746

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More