Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

DHS would get more power to bar risky contractors under dueling proposals

July 27, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

Two House Republicans are working on legislation that would expand the Homeland Security Department’s authority to deny contracts to companies that pose cybersecurity supply chain threats while the Trump administration is pushing an even more expansive proposal.

The bill in the House will be modeled on authorities Congress gave the Defense Department in 2011 that were implemented in 2015, said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., who is drafting the bill with Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

Under those rules, Pentagon contracting officers can bar vendors that pose a security risk from competing for contracts before they’re awarded and halt contractors from hiring risky subcontractors after an award.

Under current Homeland Security Department rules, contracting officers working on unclassified contracts can’t bar vendors before an award based on information provided by intelligence agencies, Soraya Correa, the department’s chief procurement officer, who testified before two House Homeland Security panels last Thursday.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2018/07/dhs-would-get-more-power-bar-risky-contractors-under-forthcoming-bill/149675/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: cyber, cybersecurity, cyberthreat, DHS, disqualification, DoD, Pentagon, security

How to avoid a contract protest

April 3, 2012 By ei2admin

Are protests destined to become just one more milestone in the federal procurement process? Recent evidence might suggest so. Notably, the protested award to Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Antarctic Research program in the South Pole and the Hawker Beechcraft protest of the award of the new light attack aircraft trainer are recent examples.

In addition, market experts predict that as defense budgets decline, companies fighting over fewer dollars will launch more protests when losing procurements that can lock them out of programs or agencies for a decade.

If protests are to become the norm for competing in major programs, then it’s to everyone’s advantage to find ways to reduce the number of protests and awards that are overturned. When companies file protests, everyone loses. The procuring agency loses because procurement time lines get stretched out. Bidders lose because the cost of participating in federal procurements goes up. Even the apparent winner incurs additional costs to defend the award, and the losing bidders incur additional costs to file the protest.

Capture and proposal managers can take some precautions that may help minimize the likelihood that their procurement will be protested or award overturned. To learn first-hand what you can do, I reached out to three attorneys with practices in federal procurement protests to see what they suggest. Here’s what I learned.

According to  Dave Nadler, a partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington D.C., protests can begin when the government releases a  defective request for proposals. “Review the RFP with an eye to unclear, ambiguous, unduly restrictive text, especially text specifying a brand name or  written around someone else’s product. It is better to seek  clarification and use the Q&A process to make sure the solicitation is clear and that your interpretation is reasonable than to file a protest,” he said.

If you are unclear about the interpretation of proposal instructions (typically Section L) or the evaluation criteria (typically Section M), then the evaluation team will probably be confused too. If the RFP is deficient, and you choose to protest the RFP, then you must file your protest before your proposal is submitted, otherwise the Government Accountability Office will rule that your protest is untimely and will summarily dismiss it, Nadler said.

As a proposal writer, there is nothing more frustrating than working with a poorly written RFP. If you have one of these, let me know and I’ll present your argument to the agency pro bono for the good of our industry. We will all benefit from well-written RFPs.

As you write your proposal, there are other pitfalls to avoid. Shlomo Katz, counsel at Brown Rudnick LLP, reinforces that you must follow the requirement of the RFP precisely. “If the RFP requires certain documentation (e.g., resumes) or certain credentials (e.g., a Ph.D.), and you don’t provide what was required, and the agency selects you anyway, that may be grounds for a successful protest. Similarly, if you make technical claims back them up with data, especially if you are claiming your widget is twice as good, twice as fast, twice as durable, etc. Ditto if you claim you can deliver in half the time of your competitors. Explain your technical approach in sufficient detail to justify that you are the best (if that’s what the evaluation criteria call for),” said Katz.

You can also have protests related to your proposed costs. According to Katz, “If your cost/price is significantly higher than your competition, make sure you explain the value proposition, and if your cost/price is significantly lower than your competition, make sure you explain why it is realistic. I had a protest where the agency selected the offeror whose cost was way below the government estimate, and GAO threw out the award because the proposal did not prove its own cost realism.”

There are also some legal gotchas, according to Carol L. O’Riordan, partner in the O’Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP. “Ensure that everyone on the team has current and required licensing, credentials, and past performance in place because it is more than embarrassing if a subcontractor’s employee is put forth as key personnel, but his required license is outdated or lapsed,” O’Riordan said. “If the procurement uses GSA schedule vehicles, make sure the team’s vehicles include the required services. Watch out for organizational conflicts of interest. Starting with all known information regarding the procurement and evaluation, make sure you understand to what extent everyone on the proposed team checked and confirmed that each has no affiliation or involvement with those identified on the other side or other procurements where conflicts may exist.”

As a final thought, some protests can be brought to the procuring agency for review, rather than going directly to GAO. This may be more advantageous, but be mindful that there are certainly timeliness rules that apply to whichever protest venue you choose.

About the Author: Bob Lohfeld is the chief executive officer of the Lohfeld Consulting Group. Published by Washington Technology, Mar. 22, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/03/12/insights-lohfeld.aspx?s=wtdaily_230312.

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: bid protest, budget cuts, contract protests, disqualification, evaluation criteria, GAO, past performance

E-mail snafu no reason to disqualify company’s bid

April 4, 2011 By ei2admin

Rain nor snow nor flooded e-mail servers will stop the delivery of a contract proposal.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers should not have disqualified a bid because it arrived via e-mail four minutes after the noon deadline.

The proposal from Watterson Construction Co. was held up because the Corps e-mail servers were in the midst of a “mail storm,” causing unusual delays in distributing e-mails.

Judge Susan Braden ruled that the company’s bid was not late because it “was both reached and received by the government’s e-mail servers before the due date.”

According to the decision, a mail storm is an “e-mail sent to a large number of users, a sufficient number of whom reply to all, flooding an e-mail system and disabling it.”

“Watterson’s proposal was improperly eliminated from the competition, as the disturbance in the Army Corps’ servers entitled Watterson to a one-day time extension,” Braden wrote in her ruling.

Braden wrote that today’s e-mails are sent instantaneously in the ordinary course of business, and a problem such as a mail storm is abnormal. The judge concluded then that the mail storm was an “emergency or unanticipated event.” As a result of the emergency, the Federal Acquisition Regulation extends the deadline to bidders for 24 hours.

“It is true that at the time proposals were due, the Army Corps Office was open for business and proposals could have been delivered by hand,” Braden wrote. “The court, however, does not construe the phrase ‘proposals cannot be received’ to mean that it must be impossible for the government to receive proposals, before the ‘emergency’ or ‘unanticipated event’ exception applies.”

— About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week – published Mar. 31, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/03/31/court-ruling-mail-storm-bid-proposal-deadline.aspx?s=wtdaily_010411 

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: Army Corps of Engineers, bid proposal, bid rejection, disqualification, responsiveness

Recent Posts

  • Contractors must update EEO poster
  • SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting
  • The risk of organizational conflicts of interest
  • The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule
  • OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting

OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate

Changes coming to DOD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification under CMMC 2.0

Judge issues nationwide injunction halting enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Read More

Contracting Tips

Contractors must update EEO poster

The risk of organizational conflicts of interest

The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

Read More

GTPAC News

VA direct access program events in 2022

Sandia National Laboratories seeks small business suppliers

Navy OSBP hosting DCAA overview (part 2) event Jan. 12, 2022

Navy OSBP hosting cybersecurity “ask me anything” event Dec. 16th

State of Georgia hosting supplier systems training on January 26, 2022

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Undergraduate enrollment growth reflects inclusive excellence

Georgia Tech delivers $4 billion in economic impact to the State of Georgia

Georgia Tech awards first round of seed grants to support team-based research

Georgia Tech announces inaugural Associate Vice President of Corporate Engagement

DoD funds Georgia Tech to enhance U.S. hypersonics capabilities

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute