As we have previously covered on this blog, challenges to the terms of a solicitation typically must be raised in a bid protest brought prior to proposal submission. The Government Accountability Office recently sustained such a pre-award protest in Selex ES, Inc., B-420799 (Sept. 6, 2022).
(This article was originally published in Law360 and has been modified for this blog.)
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a bid protest decision regarding the application of the Berry Amendment’s domestic sourcing requirement to a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) solicitation for leather combat gloves with touchscreen capability. In that decision, the GAO found that the nonavailability exception to the Berry Amendment applied to the glove’s kidskin leather even though the agency determined, through market research, that this type of leather was available domestically. Importantly, this decision provides an opportunity for stakeholders to consider the nuances associated with the Berry Amendment’s nonavailability exception and to reflect upon the complex regulatory landscape of domestic sourcing requirements.…
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained a bid protest challenging the agency’s decision to exclude the protester from consideration based on a potential organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”). The GAO decision serves as a reminder that an offeror that is excluded from a competition on the basis of a perceived OCI can challenge that decision in a protest before GAO. And although GAO will give the agency a fair amount of deference, it will nonetheless sustain a protest where it concludes that the agency’s decision was unreasonable.
Continue Reading In Archimedes Bid Protest, Government Contractor Takes on Herculean Task of Challenging the Agency’s OCI Determination, and Wins
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recently published its decision in a two protester challenge to cost realism adjustments made by the Navy during its evaluation of final proposal revisions (“FPRs”) for a base operations and administrative support services contract. In that decision, the GAO affirmed the Navy’s decision to adjust upward the proposed costs in the protesters’ cost proposals where the agency concluded that the protesters’ explanations for their rate reductions were inadequate. While the substance of the GAO’s decision is fairly unremarkable, it serves as a reminder to the contractor community that proposed costs for any cost-type contract, and proposal revisions in general, must be accompanied by sufficient explanation.
Continue Reading GAO: Don’t Just Drop Your Proposed Costs, Explain Them.