Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

The topsy-turvy world of state and local bid protests

By

Many contractors are familiar with the well-established processes of federal bid protests.  Less known is the dizzying variety of procedures applicable to state and local bid protests.  Each jurisdiction has its own rules — in terms of timing, protestable issues, standard of review, document production, and more.  A fundamental tenet in one jurisdiction may be completely inapplicable in another.

What does that mean for a contractor looking to grow its state and local business?

Be prepared:  Become familiar with the rules and practices for bid protests in the relevant jurisdiction prior to the award decision.  When the award decision is made, you’ll be in a better position to assess whether to protest and, if so, when and how to do it.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2019/04/the-topsy-turvy-world-of-state-and-local-bid-protests/

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The government rescinded all awards made in the $15B Alliant 2 Small Business governmentwide acquisition contract for IT services procurement last week.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

2018 bid protests: Strong success rate at GAO continues while protest numbers spike in court

By

Protesters remained active and fairly successful in their challenges to agencies’ procurement actions at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2018, while protests at the Court of Federal Claims spiked.

According to Ralph White, Managing Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law at GAO, presenting at West’s Government Contracts Year In Review Conference, the number of protests at GAO held steady, despite the mid-year implementation of a $350 filing fee. A previous blog post with GAO statistics can be found here. White credited a number of competing factors with the steady numbers.  The filing fee, enhanced Defense Department debriefings and the suspension of one particularly active “nuisance protester” likely worked to reduce the number of protests, while the highly competitive procurement environment, increased DoD spending, an increase in the dollar threshold for GAO’s task order jurisdiction and the steady but significant success rate for protesters worked to increase the number of protests.

That success rate – the number of protests where the protester sees some kind of remedy, whether from a sustain decision or agency corrective action – remains around 44 percent, similar to previous years, White said. For the third consecutive year, not a single agency refused to follow a recommendation issued by GAO.

The Court of Federal Claims saw a marked increase in protests in 2018 – 179, compared to 129 in 2017, a 40 percent increase.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=785248

5 questions answered about size protests

By

Wouldn’t you like to know five things about size protests and appeals?

Matthew Schoonover, partner at Koprince Law LLC, recently wrote an interesting article about size protests, specifically answering five questions you need to know about.  These are the questions he posed:

  1. What is a size protest?
  2. Who can challenge a company’s size?
  3. How are size protests decided?
  4. Can I appeal an adverse size determination?
  5. What else should I know about size protests and appeals?

Click here to read the answers to these questions: http://smallgovcon.com/five-things/size-protests-and-appeals/

Want to do business with the State of Georgia? You better know the rules!

By

Click on image above to see Georgia Procurement Manual.

Every unit of government has rules about how it purchases goods and services.  As a vendor, your success in doing business with government agencies is dependent upon your knowledge of those rules.

The federal government follows the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and many federal agencies also issue FAR supplements.  Similarly, each state government has its own purchasing procedures.

In the State of Georgia, the Department of Administrative Services, through its State Purchasing Division (SPD), maintains the Georgia Procurement Manual (GPM).  The GPM governs how state government entities purchase needed goods and supplies.  It also provides information to suppliers about how to conduct business with the State of Georgia.  SPD periodically revises the GPM to incorporate legislative changes, new automated processes and best practices.

In May of this year, the GPM was updated in several important ways, including the supplier protest process as well as internal procedural updates, such as new automated processes for state procurement staff to submit certain reports and requests to SPD.  You can see a summary of the changes here.   A brief overview of the new supplier protest process follows.

What is the supplier protest process?

GPM Section 6.5 defines how suppliers may challenge certain purchasing actions by state entities, such as: solicitations, proposed sole source contracts, proposed purchases through consortia or cooperative purchasing agreements, the results of a Request for Qualified Contractors and the state’s proposed or actual award of a contract.

How has the supplier protest process changed?

SPD has updated the supplier protest process to:

  • Define general principles that govern SPD’s review of supplier protests;
  • Address review of a supplier’s protest that a system error prevented timely submission of an electronic bid or proposal;
  • Identify certain procurements that are exempt from SPD’s protest process;
  • Define how sole source protests will be reviewed, including the option for discussions between the state entity and the protesting supplier prior to SPD issuing a protest decision;
  • Require a supplier to file a protest within 10 calendar days of the date the supplier knows or should have known of the action which is being protested or the other applicable protest filing deadlines, whichever is sooner;
  • Update the submission process to remove the fax number (protests may continue to be either mailed or sent via email to the addresses noted in the GPM); and
  • Provide other clarifications.
When are these changes effective?

Changes became effective May 18, 2018.  You can listen to a recorded webinar on the changes to the Georgia Procurement Manual here: GPM changes.  (Presentation begins at the 9:55 mark.)

Pentagon seeks to limit bid protests in federal court

By

The Defense Department is proposing legislation to impose new constraints on government contractors’ ability to protest federal agencies’ award decisions, including by rolling back their rights to file bid protests in federal court.

Currently, companies who believe an agency mishandled a contract award have two independent forums to file protests: the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). But some firms opt to take their cases to both.

If, for example, GAO denies or dismisses their protest, they still have the right to file a new claim at the COFC.

DoD’s proposal would essentially eliminate that option by requiring contractors to bring cases to COFC within 10 days of the agency’s award decision: the same deadline used by GAO. Since GAO has up to 100 days to sustain or deny a protest, a company could not wait and use the court as a backstop if it loses its case at GAO.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/defense-main/2018/05/pentagon-seeks-to-limit-bid-protests-in-federal-court/

GAO bid protests must be submitted online starting in May

By

Vendors that don’t like the results of a contract award will have to go online to take up their beef up with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) starting next month.

GAO on Thursday announced its plans to launch the electronic bid protest docketing system, a web portal where groups can securely file protests to federal contract awards. Vendors will be required to submit all new protests through EPDS beginning May 1.

“This new system modernizes the bid protest process at GAO and will make it a much more efficient process,” said Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who heads the congressional watchdog agency, in a statement.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/04/all-bid-protests-must-be-submitted-online-starting-may/147257/

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) new Bid Protest Regulations, effective May 1, 2018, are at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/02/2018-06413/government-accountability-office-administrative-practice-and-procedure-bid-protest-regulations

Contractors face changes to bid protest strategies

By

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2018 includes some significant changes affecting contractors, particularly with regard to challenges to requests for proposals and contract awards, otherwise known as “bid protests.”

The key bid protest changes in the new NDAA are: the introduction of a new pilot program under which large defense contractors will be required to pay the Defense Department’s costs where a protest is denied; and the enhancement of post-award debriefing rights.

While Congress passed the former with the intent of reducing frivolous protests, it is likely the latter — which will give contractors greater insight into the rationale behind procurement decisions — that will have a greater impact on the number of protests filed.

Section 827 of the act requires that the department establish and implement a three-year pilot program under which “large” defense contractors will be required to reimburse the department for “costs incurred in processing covered protests” for protests “denied in an opinion” by the Government Accountability Office.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/3/6/contractors-face-changes-to-bid-protest-strategies

Five factors for proposal evaluation: Creating bids that will survive a protest

By

Submitting the winning bid is an exhilarating feeling, dimmed only by the following days, as the offeror waits to hear if others may file a protest.

Once a protest is filed, offerors options are limited.

One option that is available to offerors, but often ignored is the right to hire qualified counsel to represent their interests.  Government contract attorneys are in a unique position, in that, while they are ethically obligated to protect their client’s interests, they are prohibited from discussing certain information with their clients.  This frustrates offerors, and limits an attorney’s opportunities to provide valuable information about how things might have been different, had the offeror only done something different.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.bidprotestweekly.com/five-factors-for-proposal-evaluation-creating-bids-that-will-survive-a-protest/

August 2017 protests underscore impact of government’s discretion

By

There is no question that procurement regulations give agencies significant discretion at every step of the procurement process, and protesters often have a hard row to hoe to overcome the agency’s exercise of that discretion.

However, agencies often make that task easier by failing to provide full and logical explanations of their decisions that show they have considered all the relevant facts in light of the competing goals of the procurement system, not just the agency’s objective.

The following cases from August illustrate this point.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=629184

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More