Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

What to expect from OTA protests and disputes

By

Ready or not — federal agencies are increasingly utilizing “other transactions authority” (OTA) to craft agreements that are not subject to traditional procurement laws and therefore should, in theory, allow the government greater access to innovative solutions.

While the goal of OTA procedures may be to avoid bottlenecks inherent in procurement under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in the end they may result in valuable contracts with the government. As with any such contracts, it is inevitable that disputes will arise during their formation and administration.

While there is very little precedent relating to protests of OTA awards or claims arising under OTA-awarded contracts, there are some fundamental principles and analogous decisions that suggest how this early history of OTA protests and claims may unfold.

This article attempts to portray the current landscape for protests of OTA awards and contract claims arising during performance of an OTA agreement.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=721778

GAO: Agency closing time is 4:30 pm, not 5:00 pm

By

Unless an agency designates different business hours, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) says that a government agency is deemed to close at 4:30 p.m. local time–not 5:00 p.m., as it would be easy to assume.

In a recent case, the 4:30 p.m. closing time cost an unsuccessful offeror a chance at a GAO protest because the offeror’s debriefing request, sent to the agency at 4:59 p.m., was deemed untimely.

The GAO’s decision in Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc., B-416232 (July 12, 2018) involved an NSA solicitation seeking to award up to six IDIQ contracts for the definition, prototyping, development, and production of visualization and presentation tools.  Thirteen offerors, including Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc., submitted initial proposals.

The evaluation panel determined that ESS’s proposal was unacceptable under one of the non-price factors.  On Thursday, March 15, 2018, NSA informed ESS that its proposal had been excluded from the competitive range.  The letter explained that ESS had been found unacceptable, and the reasons why.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-agency-closing-time-is-430-p-m-not-500-p-m/

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.)

Booz Allen wins corrective action from GSA on Army software contract

By

The General Services Administration must reimburse global contractor Booz Allen Hamilton for the costs of a recent bid protest due to delays in agency responses, the Government Accountability Office determined.

In a decision from its general counsel dated May 7 but released only in redacted form last week, the congressional watchdog ruled in Booz Allen’s favor in two of three provisions of its complaint against competitor Raytheon over computer resource engineering support for the Army’s Software Engineering Directorate.

The cost-plus, fixed-fee task order for the contract solicited in December 2016 was worth between $582 million and $690 million and was limited to the firms in GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) pool for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. “The contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority, selected Raytheon’s proposal for award based on its total assessed value,” which was lower than that of Booz Allen, the ruling noted.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/contracting/2018/06/booz-allen-wins-corrective-action-gsa-army-software-contract/148906

What GAO said and did not say about soliciting data rights in recent protest ruling

By

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a decision on May 22, denying in part and dismissing in part Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation’s much-watched protest of the Air Force’s solicitation to replace the UH-1N helicopter.  The decison deals an early (if light) blow to contractors in their fight against the Air Force’s recent data rights grab.

The GAO, in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., B-416027; B-416027.2, May 22, 2018, ultimately endorsed one provision requiring broad delivery of both technical data and software necessary for operations, maintenance, installation, and training activities (defined in the solicitation as “OMIT Data”), but Sikorsky’s protest did not go down without first getting an important concession from the Air Force. This concession, and the GAO’s discussion of whether OMIT Data includes source code, are the key takeaways from Sikorsky, and we will discuss them in some length here. Before we do, some stage-setting is appropriate, in particular because the clauses at issue are confusing.

For more than 20 years, contractors and government personnel have used “OMIT data” as a familiar shorthand for the data called out in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1)(v) as “Necessary for installation, operation, maintenance, or training purposes (other than detailed manufacturing or process data),” and, importantly, in which the Government is entitled to unlimited rights. In this parlance, OMIT data by definition include neither “detailed manufacturing or process data” (DMPD) nor computer software. Unsurprisingly, the Air Force caused some consternation recently when it bucked this convention and began including in its solicitations for major weapons systems a provision defining “OMIT Data” to include all types of computer software and, in some cases, DMPD. (We distinguish this OMIT Data, specially defined by the Air Force, and the colloquial OMIT data.) Sikorsky was the first to file a formal challenge.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=706316

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/ 

Addressing the key points in your proposal to the government

By

Responding to a request for proposals is time consuming and, yes, tedious at times.  However, your proposal is your opportunity to demonstrate to the government: 1) that you understand their need, and 2) that you can meet, and perhaps exceed, their expectations.  Consequently, it is not enough to tell them that your business can do the job.  You must provide concrete evidence that you have what it takes to meet their demands.

While reputation, prior experience, and good will may get you additional business in the private sector, this is not true in government contracting.  Even companies who have exceeded performance expectations for years must provide details commensurate with the RFP in order to maintain their position as the government contractor providing the service.  Finally, a key difference between private sector work and government contracting is that the government’s decision is almost always subject to scrutiny.  Consequently, even if your proposal satisfies the government and you win the bid, you still run the risk of losing the award due to a properly filed protest, if the reviewing body determines you shouldn’t have received such high scores.

Below we offer some tips, based on years of defending award winners, protesting awards to others, and hands-on experience in government contacting. In our work, we have seen certain detrimental mistakes repeated – time and time again. While proposals include some subjective criteria, by implementing these tips, you can increase your chance of achieving a higher score which, in turn, increases your chances of an award, and increases your likelihood of surviving a protest later.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.bidprotestweekly.com/5-must-know-tips-for-preparing-a-bid-addressing-the-key-points-in-your-proposal-to-the-government

New rules for filing protests at GAO and new DFARS debriefing requirements

By

The Government Accountability Office {GAO) finally has unveiled its long-awaited Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS).

Effective May 1, 2018, all new protests (excluding those containing classified material) must be filed using GAO’s EPDS.

In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2018 enhanced debriefing requirements for all contract and task order awards valued at $10 million or more. Under the new rules, contracting officers must provide unsuccessful offerors an opportunity to submit additional questions related to the debriefing within two business days after receiving the initial debriefing. The agency then has five business days to respond after receipt of the questions.

See details on both of these new requirements at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=697940

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

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More