Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GSA rescinds all awards made on $15 billion Alliant 2 Small Business contract

By

The government rescinded all awards made in the $15B Alliant 2 Small Business governmentwide acquisition contract for IT services procurement last week.

The move follows an order from the Court of Federal Claims that the General Services Administration must rescore every submission it received to address errors raised in protest from Virginia-based technology company, Citizant Inc.

The Alliant 2 SB is part of one of the largest federal IT opportunities of the decade. In February 2018, GSA announced its award to 81 small business, which federal agencies would be able to access for integrated IT solutions around their “current and evolving needs.” After the announcement, protests from dissatisfied bidders ensued.

In March 2018, Citizant, Inc. protested the bid to the Government Accountability Office. GAO dismissed the file in May 2018, but Citizant took complaints to court and won this week, resulting in the rescission.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2019/03/gsa-rescinds-all-awards-made-15b-alliant-2-small-business-contract/155869/

Federal Circuit Court clarifies infringement liability for contractors

By

Performance of a government contract often requires use of patented processes and products, which may not be owned by or licensed to the United States or the performing contractor.  Section 1498 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code establishes an exclusive remedy for patent owners to obtain just compensation when the United States or its contractors infringe their patents, while also shielding contractors from infringement liability and ensuring private patent rights do not obstruct government operations.

Under that statutory framework, when a contractor performing work “for the Government and with authorization or consent of the Government” is accused of patent infringement, § 1498 generally shields the contractor from liability and provides that any infringement action must be brought as a claim for money damages against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.

In other words, § 1498 “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity and provides a remedy ‘[w]henever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same.'”

“By waiving the Government’s sovereign immunity, § 1498 ‘provides a cause of action against the United States’ and [a]t the same time, … protects government contractors against infringement liability and remedies where it applies.'”

Over a century old, § 1498 implements important, long-standing policies that:

1) contractors should not bear the risk associated with performing work for the government that may be infringing, and

2) the government may be liable for money damages (i.e., just compensation) for its infringing activities, but its operations will not be enjoined.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=716932

 

Contractors oppose proposed limit on federal bid protests

By

As the Senate Armed Services Committee last week began its markup of the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, a contractors group was pushing committee leaders to reject a Pentagon proposal to curb time-consuming bid protests.

Seeking to eliminate what some senators call “frivolous” protests and what acquisition officials call “forum shopping,” the Defense Department this spring pressed for limiting the ability of contractors who unsuccessfully sought an award and are rejected by the Government Accountability Office to then continue their protest at the Court of Federal Claims. The plan would limit the so-called “second bite at the apple” in the court to within 10 days of knowing (or when they should have known) they had the basis for a protest.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/contracting/2018/05/contractors-oppose-proposed-limit-federal-bid-protests/148368/ 

Federal court interprets SDVOSB “unconditional ownership” less strictly than SBA

By

The Court of Federal Claims recently issued an opinion that defines “unconditional ownership” of an SDVOSB in a more relaxed manner than the SBA, creating a split of authority on the issue.

The Court, rejecting SBA precedent, held that certain restrictions on ownership of an SDVOSB by a service-disabled veteran are acceptable under the SBA’s unconditional ownership regulations. In particular, the SDVOSB company can retain a right of first refusal that would allow it to purchase the shares of the veteran upon death, incompetency, or insolvency, and that right does not result in a violation of the unconditional ownership requirement.

With the Court and the SBA’s administrative judges staking out different positions, what should SDVOSBs do?

In Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1015C, (Fed. Cl. Aug. 22, 2017), the Court examined the same facts that the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals did in a recent decision addressed in the SmallGovCon blog post of September 19, 2017.  And, examining the very same facts, the Court reached the opposite conclusion.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/federal-court-interprets-sdvosb-unconditional-ownership-less-strictly-than-sba/

A road less traveled: Agency-level protests

By

An agency just messed up a procurement, and you want to protest. Where do you go?

agency-level-protestsThe vast majority of bid protests are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  A far smaller percentage of protests are brought as lawsuits before the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).  It is easy to forget there is a third forum available for most protests of federal procurements — the procuring agency itself, which may be preferable to the GAO and the court in certain circumstances.

Agency-level protests are governed by Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 33 and agency FAR supplements. In a nutshell, they are written complaints addressed to the contracting officer or another designated official requesting corrective action of some sort.  FAR 33.103(d)(4) allows protesters to request review of the protest at a level above the contracting officer, which the agency may allow either as an alternative to review by the contracting officer, or as an appeal from his or her decision.

As at the GAO, a protest to the agency ordinarily is timely if filed before bid opening or the date set for receipt of proposals (for solicitation improprieties) or no later than 10 days after the protest ground was known or should have been known (for all other grounds) (FAR 33.103(e)).  The GAO’s debriefing exception — allowing protests to be filed later than 10 days after a ground is known if filed within 10 days after a required and requested debriefing — does not apply to agency-level protests.  (See M2 Global Tech., Ltd., B-400946, Jan. 8, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 13 at 3.)

And, as at the GAO, timely receipt of a pre-award protest ordinarily stays the contract award, and timely receipt of a protest within 10 days after a contract award or five days after a required and requested debriefing ordinarily stays performance of an awarded contract (FAR 33.103(f)(1) and 33.103(f)(3)).

Beyond these very basic rules, agencies are generally free to proceed as they see fit in accordance with internal agency policy.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=530828

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More