Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GAO denies protest to LPTA solicitation ridden with cost uncertainty and local zoning code conflicts

By

Federal agencies have long been afforded wide discretion in defining solicitation requirements to meet their contracting needs.  But are a solicitation’s requirements acceptable even where they’re likely to conflict with local zoning codes?  What about where the solicitation documents conflict with one another on whether certain requirements are considered “requirements” at all?  And finally, is an LPTA procurement acceptable where such conflicts have undoubtedly led to price uncertainty among the bidders?

GAO says, “yes” to all of these, so long as the requirements meet the agency’s needs.

In Flaherty Family Trust, B-414563.3 (Aug. 16, 2018), GSA issued an RLP seeking to lease a “professional” office space location for the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection port in Savannah, Georgia. GSA anticipated award to the lowest-price technically-acceptable offeror.  The main RLP contained general internal space qualifications. But a separate “Agency Special Requirements” document provided specialized usage and internal space specifications that were inconsistent with the main solicitation. The RLP also required 44 government parking spaces with an additional 96 public-parking spaces within a quarter mile. But these parking specifications did not comply with local county zoning codes for majority of potential office locations.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-denies-protest-to-lpta-solicitation-ridden-with-cost-uncertainty-and-local-zoning-code-conflicts/ 

GAO continues to expand the scope of ‘prototypes’ that DoD may buy through OTs

By

The most common question heard about the recent boom in the Department of Defense’s spending on other transactions, or OTs, is a simple one:  How can I get in on the action? 

Understandably, OTs – essentially contracts not subject to procurement laws or regulations like the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) – are very enticing to traditional and nontraditional contractors alike.  And opportunities for OTs abound, particularly since Congress, in 2015, codified the DoD’s authority to award OTs for “prototype projects” (previously just a pilot program) and expanded that authority to include OTs for follow-on production efforts.  But there are limits to DoD’s authority, foremost being that, in general, DoD may acquire only “prototypes” through OTs, and must buy all other goods and services through traditional, FAR-based procurement contracts.

So the question of how to access DoD’s surge in OT funding hinges, among other things, on more specific questions:  What exactly is a “prototype”?   And do my offerings fit the bill?

The answers, it seems, are quite a lot and probably yes.  Congress provided very little legislative direction, instead leaving to DoD the decision over just how broad its authority might reach.  Unsurprisingly, it took a broadminded approach to the term “prototype,” and so far the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as legislative oversight, has upheld the DoD’s expanding interpretation.  This continued in ACI Technologies, Inc., B-417011, Jan. 17, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 24, where the GAO found the DoD properly awarded a prototype OT for, among other things, training programs, skills development outreach, and the drafting of best practices for fostering commercial development of secure electronic parts.

Specifically at issue in ACI Technologies was a solicitation by the Naval Surface Warfare Center seeking a firm to manage a consortium of contractors in support of the agency’s Strategic & Spectrum Missions Advanced Resilient Trusted Systems (S2MARTS) initiative.  This initiative’s stated goal is to obtain “innovative technological solutions to address current and future security threats in the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), trusted microelectronics, and strategic missions hardware environments,” which includes “developing a relationship with industry and academia to establish streamlined processes for obtaining innovative, State-of-the-Art (SOTA) technologies” and “establishing an agile and collaborative working relationship amongst the Government and academia/industry.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gao-continues-to-expand-the-scope-of-91815/

For more information about OTs, see the Defense Acquisition University’s OT Guide at: https://aaf.dau.mil/ot-guide/

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/

Pentagon requests voluntary refund of millions of dollars from contractor TransDigm

By

The Army and Defense Logistics Agency will both seek reimbursement on millions of dollars from contractor TransDigm, following an Inspector General report into the company’s contracts with the Pentagon.

TransDigm, which produces specialized parts for aircraft such as pumps, valves and batteries,, earned “excess profit” 112 of 113 contracts reviewed by the IG’s office, per a report released last Wednesday. The IG found that the company received $16.1 million in excess profit between January 2015 and January 2017, with a cost that could go up due to spare parts in the future.

The 112 contracts, signed with the Army or DLA, had profit margins ranging from 17 to a whopping 4,451 percent; The IG’s office calls profit percentages of 15 percent or below to be “reasonable.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/02/27/pentagon-requests-voluntary-refund-of-millions-of-dollars-from-contractor-transdigm/

Pentagon auditors advised to better monitor contractor business systems

By

The Defense Department’s management and auditing sub-agencies need to clarify their roles and improve the timeliness of their examinations of contractor accounting, estimating and purchasing systems, a watchdog found.

“DoD currently lacks a mechanism based on relevant and reliable information, such as the number of [contractor business system] reviews that are outstanding, the risk level assigned to those systems, and the resources available to conduct such reviews,” the Government Accountability Office wrote in a report released on February 8th.

Citing directives from Congress over the past decade, GAO reviewed data from the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency and found that the DCAA, for example, conducted few business system audits in the past six years, due, in part, to the need for it to reduce its backlog on completing incurred cost audits.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/defense/2019/02/pentagon-auditors-advised-better-monitor-contractor-business-systems/154758/

GSA launches enhanced debriefing pilot, but why not make it permanent?

By

The perception that bid protests are mucking up the federal procurement process is one of those urban myths that will not die, like how Paul McCartney died in a car crash in 1966 or that the Air Force hides away UFOs in the desert.

Despite the fact that these “theories” are continually disproven, the myths just will not go away. Plenty of people swear they hear “Paul is dead” when you play “Revolution No. 9” backward.

For instance the most recent attempt to limit bid protests to improve acquisition is from the Section 809 panel. It recommended making substantial changes to the federal bid protest process by limiting vendors to filing before the Government Accountability Office or the Court of Federal Claims, but not both, as well as prohibiting protests of contracts for “readily available” products or services of less than $15 million.

The Senate Armed Services Committee a few years ago tried to “restrain” bid protests by making it harder on contractors to bring complaints before the GAO.

Despite the well-known fact that protests impact less than 1 percent of all procurement actions a year, there is this ever-present concern that bid protests are fouling up the system and a major part of the reason why federal contracting takes so long.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2019/02/gsa-launches-an-enhanced-debriefing-pilot-but-why-not-just-make-it-permanent/

GAO says strict compliance with Buy American Act exception requirements not necessary

By

The Situation: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently held that a bid need not contain all of the information listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR clause 52.225-9) to qualify for the “unreasonable cost” exception to the Buy American Act (BAA).

The Result: The decision requires agencies to analyze the contents of a bid, rather than mechanically rejecting it on a technicality.

Looking Ahead: A company can protest a rejected bid so long as the missing information would not allow the bidder to later alter its price or relative standing.

The GAO recently sustained a protest finding that it was unreasonable for the Department of Energy (DOE) to reject a bid simply because it failed to strictly comply with all of the requirements for an exception to the BAA. In Addison Constr. Co., B-416525 (Sept. 4, 2018), Addison Construction Company submitted a bid to construct a capacitor bank for DOE in Arizona. Addison’s bid informed DOE that a portion of the construction materials used would be foreign, not domestic. Addison’s bid requested an exception to the BAA pursuant to FAR clause 52.225-9, available when the cost of domestic construction material is “unreasonable” (i.e., it exceeds the cost of foreign material by more than six percent).

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=760680

GAO says strict bid compliance with Buy American Act exception requirements not necessary

By

The GAO recently sustained a protest finding that it was unreasonable for the Department of Energy (DOE) to reject a bid simply because it failed to strictly comply with all of the requirements for an exception to the BAA.

In Addison Constr. Co., B-416525, Addison Construction Company submitted a bid to construct a capacitor bank for DOE in Arizona. Addison’s bid informed DOE that a portion of the construction materials used would be foreign, not domestic. Addison’s bid requested an exception to the BAA pursuant to FAR clause 52.225-9, available when the cost of domestic construction material is “unreasonable” (i.e., it exceeds the cost of foreign material by more than six percent).

Under FAR clause 52.225-9, a contractor seeking an exception to the BAA construction materials requirement on the basis of unreasonable cost must include the following with its bid: price, quantity, unit of measure, and a description of the foreign and domestic materials at issue, along with a detailed justification for the use of foreign construction materials, a “reasonable survey of the market,” and a completed price comparison table in the format provided in FAR clause 52.225-9(d). In addition, the clause requires the contractor to provide the time of delivery or availability of the materials, the location of the construction project, specific supplier information (including the name, address, and telephone number for the supplier, and a copy of the supplier’s response or a summary thereof), and “other applicable supporting information.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5c1472f9-6d91-4b8e-8983-ca1b544bf880 

Vendors challenged more federal contracts in 2018

By

The number of bid protests filed against the federal government increased less than 1 percent last year, but contractors continue to get some sort of recompense from the agencies they’re challenging, according to a Government Accountability Office annual report.

Contractors filed 2,607 bid protests in fiscal 2018, an uptick from 2,596 in fiscal 2017. The number of bid protests has been increasing since 2013, except for fiscal 2017 when they dropped 7 percent.

The office closed 2,642 cases during the year, which breaks down as 2,505 protests, 53 cost claims and 84 requests for consideration. Even though the office saw a slight uptick in protests filed, they sustained them at a lower rate—15 percent—than in fiscal 2017.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2018/11/vendors-challenged-more-federal-contracts-2018/153148/

GAO: DoD should clarify criteria for using LPTA

By

Although Congress has restricted when the Dept. of Defense (DoD) might use lowest-price technically-acceptable (LPTA) contractor selection criteria, the Department has not followed this mandate.

Note: This article was written by Matthew Schoonover of Koprince Law, LLC and first appeared in SmallGovCon.

A recent GAO report highlights DoD’s struggle.  As of September 2018, DoD has not yet revised its regulations to reflect certain statutory restrictions against LPTA awards and, as a result, DoD contracting officers believe they are not yet required to follow these new requirements.

Candidly, I’m not so sure. But in any event, GAO’s report issued a couple of recommendations to help DoD fully implement the restrictions against LPTA procurements.

Let’s take a look.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/gao-report-lpta/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More