Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

L versus M: Where do I start?

By

I’ve noticed a trend with some companies to use section M of the government solicitation document as the basis for their proposal structure.  While I understand the desire to make it easy for the evaluators to score your proposal, this could result in a noncompliant bid.

Organize your bid or proposal according to the customer’s instructions.  A compliant proposal meets the customer’s requirements and submittal instructions.

U.S. federal bid requests issued under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 must comply with detailed instructions on how the bid request and bid response are to be structured.  Requirements for the structure of the proposal are provided in section L. Evaluation factors for the award are provided in section M.

Evaluators often review proposals in two passes.  The first pass is a compliance review to section L.  This review may be performed by the CO and if the proposal is not rigorously compliant, it doesn’t make it to the second pass which is evaluation and scoring.

Continue reading at:  Multibriefs

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The government rescinded all awards made in the $15B Alliant 2 Small Business governmentwide acquisition contract for IT services procurement last week.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

GAO sustains protest where agency inconsistently evaluated proposal

By

GAO generally defers to an agency’s judgment when it comes to the evaluation of proposals. This deference flags, however, when an agency evaluates competing proposals inconsistently; or, in other words, treats offerors disparately.

Let’s take a look at how GAO, in a recently sustained protest, found that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable.

In Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC, B-416980 et al. (Jan. 16, 2019), the Army Corps of Engineers solicited environmental remediation and munitions response services. The agency noted that it would evaluate the proposals on a best-value tradeoff basis, with non-price considerations being significantly more important than price. In all, the agency planned to award up to 10 fixed-price IDIQ task-order contracts.

After conducting discussions with offerors in the competitive range and obtaining revised proposals, the agency assigned all offerors identical ratings for their non-price factors, with one exception. For the least important non-price factor–which consisted of offerors’ proposing a technical approach for a sample project–the agency assigned identified two weaknesses in Bristol’s proposal and assigned it a marginal rating. (This marginal rating cost Bristol a contract, which the agency awarded to six other offerors.) As you can imagine, Bristol challenged the two assigned weaknesses.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/inconsistency-killed-the-cat-gao-sustains-protest-where-agency-inconsistently-evaluated-proposal/

Security assessments soon may be part of DoD government contracts acquisition process

By

Identifying threats and improving network and supply chain security has been an ongoing effort by Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) for the past several years.

Congress has included multiple provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Acts to spur action by the DoD to address weaknesses in contractor supply chains for electronic parts and vulnerabilities to cyber threats in contractor information technology systems. In turn, the DoD has amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to impose new performance requirements on contractors and subcontractors in DoD procurement contracts. This cascading effort of turning policy into contract performance has been steady but slow and of questionable efficacy.

A new initiative under consideration by the DoD could change that. In June testimony to Congress, the DoD said it has started a new initiative known as “Deliver Uncompromised” to “elevate the private sector’s focus on security.” The DoD’s goal is to establish security as a “fourth pillar” in acquisition, “on par with cost, schedule and performance.” The hope is to create incentives for industry to “embrace security, not as a ‘cost center,’ but as a key differentiator” in competitions for procurement contracts.

In August 2018, the nonprofit group Mitre Corporation (Mitre) released a report called “Deliver Uncompromised,” which describes how the DoD and the intelligence community face daily strategic attacks from foreign adversaries in the supply chain domain (e.g., software, hardware, and services) and cyber domain (e.g., informational technology and cyber-physical such as weapons systems). Mitre’s report calls for a unified focus of resources from both the DoD and government contractors to prioritize risk mitigation through enhanced infrastructure and better coordination.

While the DoD cannot require private companies to invest in specific security measures, the Mitre report recommends that the DoD use its purchasing power and regulatory authority to influence and shape the conduct of the DoD suppliers. For example, the DoD may begin defining procurement requirements with new security measures, or rewarding contractor proposals with superior security measures by elevating security as a primary metric for evaluation during the source selection process. The DoD could also include terms and conditions in its contracts that impose security requirements, and then use those contractual terms post-award to monitor contractor compliance.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=737662

GTPAC has created a video and a template to help businesses comply with DoD’s cybersecurity requirements.  These resources appear at: http://gtpac.org/cybersecurity-training-video/

Draft DoD guidance reveals how cyber readiness will impact contract evaluations

By

Editor’s Note: This post was created by Jon Williams who is a partner with PilieroMazza and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. 

We have been blogging and giving webinars since last year about the DoD requirements around cybersecurity for contractors that are subject to DFARS 252.204-7012. Please view our past blogs and webinars here and here to get more of the backstory.

In a nutshell, DoD contractors operating nonfederal IT systems and subject to DFARS 252.204-7012 were required to have a system security plan (“SSP”) in place by December 31, 2017, to demonstrate compliance with the recommended security controls in NIST SP 800-171. Although the DFARS requirements were black-and-white, there was a fair amount of uncertainty late last year and continuing into this year about what contractors needed to do to comply and if/how DoD would enforce the requirements.

DoD has taken some of the mystery out of these cyber requirements in a recently-released draft guidance.

Keep reading this blog post at: http://www.pilieromazza.com/the-protests-are-coming-draft-dod-guidance-reveals-how-cyber-readiness-will-impact-contract-evaluations

See GTPAC’s instructional video on achieving compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012 and NIST guidance at: http://gtpac.org/cybersecurity-training-video/

Unstated evaluation criteria and waived solicitation requirements

By

This week we’ll discuss two protest arguments that are, in some ways, two sides of the same coin: unstated evaluation criteria and waived or relaxed solicitation requirements.

In each, the focus of the protest is on what was required (or not required) by the solicitation and whether the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the information provided to offerors in the solicitation.

  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria – Under an unstated evaluation criteria theory, the protester must show that it was faulted for a weakness, or the awardee was credited with a strength, that has no logical relation to the stated evaluation criteria.
  • Waived or Relaxed Requirements – While an unstated evaluation criteria protest ground may concern an agency’s application of a requirement that does not exist in a solicitation, the waived or relaxed requirement protest ground involves the agency’s failure to apply a solicitation or specification requirement.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=642102

Formal claim required to appeal negative performance evaluation

By

For federal contractors, it is not an exaggeration to say that performance evaluations are the lifeblood of the business.

A less-than-satisfactory evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) affects far more than just the agency’s assessment of performance on a particular project.  A negative evaluation follows a contractor around – impacting the ability to obtain future contracts due to the specter negative past performance ratings.

The good news for contractors is that the ability to challenge and – if successful – reverse negative CPARS evaluations is a quickly developing area of government contracting law.

The first step in any successful CPARS challenge involves meaningful participation in the evaluation process.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42.15 entitles contractors to submit comments and receive an agency review of a disputed performance evaluation.  Specifically, contractors are entitled to submit comments, rebuttal statements, and/or other information in response to the agency’s evaluation.  The agency must then review those comments at a level above the contracting officer and update the evaluation, if necessary.

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontracts.foxrothschild.com/2017/09/articles/contract-claims/cpars-challenge-primer-formal-claim-required-to-appeal-negative-performance-evaluation/

Contracting dispute delays OPM’s background investigations processing

By

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision comes shortly after OPM stood up the nascent National Background Investigations Bureau. Two companies filed a protest with GAO after OPM awarded the $117 million contract to Primus Solutions, a division of ARSC Federal. The contract was for at least two years with options of up to five, and was intended to provide OPM employees support in processing background investigations.

In its solicitation, OPM had said it would consider price to a much lesser degree that non-price factors such as technical approach, quality control plan, staffing plan and past performance. Primus came in more than $9 million below one of the companies filing the protest and more than $44 million below the other. GAO confirmed allegations that OPM’s selection authorities ignored initial concerns from its price evaluators that Primus’ cost estimates were “unrealistic.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2017/06/contracting-dispute-delays-opms-background-investigations-processing/138688/

GAO decision illustrates breadth of agency discretion in past performance evaluations

By

past-performance-relevanceIn the recent bid protest decision of Halbert Construction Company Inc., the Government Accountability Office (GAO) illustrated the breadth of a procuring agency’s discretion in conducting a past performance evaluation.

Halbert Construction brought the protest after being excluded from the competitive range, arguing primarily that the Navy unreasonably included a non-relevant prior project in the past performance evaluation which led to Halbert Construction’s exclusion.  The GAO sustained the protest based on the well- established principle that offerors must be treated equally because the Navy excluded another offeror’s past performance reference from the evaluation as not relevant under the solicitation’s relevancy criteria but then failed to do the same for the protestor.

More notable than the relatively straight-forward application of the disparate treatment principle was the decision’s discussion of the very broad discretion of agencies in past performance evaluations.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2016/10/gao-decision-illustrates-breadth-agency-discretion-past-performance-evaluations/

Post hoc proposal reevaluation exacerbates error in award decision

By

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealThe Government Accountability Office (GAO) released on July 15, 2016 a public version of Delfasco, LLC, B-409514.3 (March 2, 2015), a decision noteworthy because of how the GAO dealt with an agency’s post hoc reevaluation of proposals.

The protestor, Delfasco, LLC (Delfasco), had an incumbent contract to sell dummy practice bombs to the U.S. Army, and it protested the award of a follow-on contract to GTI Systems, Inc. (“GTI”), a competitor.

While Delfasco’s protest was pending before the GAO, the Army reevaluated the offerors’ proposals, and it found errors in its evaluation.  The Army increased Delfasco’s past performance rating, and it eliminated three strengths that had been assigned to GTI’s technical proposal.  Nonetheless, the Army concluded that these errors would not have altered its award decision.  In its final brief to the GAO, the Army explained this reevaluation.  The Army asserted that Delfasco had not been prejudiced, and it asked the GAO to deny Delfasco’s protest.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2016/07/post-hoc-proposal-reevaluation-exacerbates-error-in-award-decision/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More