Category: Bid Protests

GAO Rejects Notion of a Pre-FPR “Continuous Registration Requirement” for SAM

Luke W. Meier and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The last week saw GAO sustain two protests that should put the nail in the SAM “continuous registration” coffin.

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council recently revised the standard System for Award Management (“SAM”) registration clause (FAR 52.204-7) to make clear there is no “continuous registration requirement”—contractors need to be registered in SAM only at the time they submit their final, legally-binding proposal.

In two recent decisions, GAO has confirmed that the same was (and is) true under the prior version of FAR 52.204-7 as well. That is, if an agency allows an offeror to submit a revised proposal, and the offeror is properly registered in SAM when that final proposal is submitted, it does not matter if there was some SAM registration failure at an earlier stage of the procurement.  The offeror is eligible, and it would be unreasonable for an agency to eliminate an offeror or terminate an award based on a pre-FPR SAM flaw.

In UNICA-BPA JV, LLC, B-422580.3, the protester (“UNICA”) had an active SAM registration when it submitted its final revised proposal, but the Agency later eliminated UNICA from the competition based on the fact that UNICA was not registered in SAM at the time of its initial proposal. That was unreasonable, GAO found, because UNICA had in fact met the stated requirement to be registered in SAM “when submitting an offer,” as the FAR defines “offer” as a proposal that can form a binding contract, and that definition applied only to UNICA’s final, legally-binding proposal, which was compliant. GAO thus found the Agency acted unreasonably by eliminating UNICA from the competition and sustained UNICA’s protest.

In Metris LLC, B-422996.2, the Agency proposed to take corrective action to terminate the award to Metris for having a break in its SAM registration between the time of the initial proposal submission and its final proposal submission. GAO found that Metris’s initial proposal was extinguished when Metris submitted – and the Agency accepted – Metris’s final proposal revision. Because Metris was registered in SAM at the time of the final proposal revision, Metris had an active SAM registration when it submitted its offer, in accordance with FAR 52.204-7. GAO thus recommended that the agency abandon its plans to terminate Metris’s contract award, and instead “maintain its existing award to Metris.”

These cases follow the legal reasoning of Hanford Tank Disposition Alliance, LLC v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 269, 312-319 (2024), and should deter agencies from eliminating any more offerors over pre-FPR SAM issues.

Also published in National Law Review at GAO Confirms No Continuous SAM Registration Requirement, January 17, 2025.

Fiscal Year 2024 GAO Protest Statistics: Course Correction from Fiscal Year 2023 Shows Continued Slow Decline in GAO Protests

Luke W. Meier and Shane M. Hannon ●

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released its Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2024 (B-158766), summarizing bid protest activity during the 2024 fiscal year. The FY24 bid protest statistics reflect a continuation of recent trends, and course correction after the FY23 statistics were skewed by the 100+ protests challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ government-wide acquisition contract, the Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 4 (“CIO-SP4”).

Overall, the number of protests is fairly steady, the effectiveness rate remains high (over 50 percent), and hearings are increasingly rare (just one in the last year).

Continue reading “Fiscal Year 2024 GAO Protest Statistics: Course Correction from Fiscal Year 2023 Shows Continued Slow Decline in GAO Protests”

Upcoming Blank Rome-Hosted ABA Public Contract Law Committee Meetings

Blank Rome is pleased to host two upcoming American Bar Association (“ABA”) Public Contract Law (“PCL”) Committee meetings in September.

Tuesday, September 17, 2024
12:00–1:15 p.m. EDT

Blank Rome’s Washington, DC office will host the annual ABA PCL Bid Protest Committee “Back to School” panel, with a virtual option. This will be followed by a Vice-Chair Planning Session from 1:15 to 2:00 p.m. Committee co-chair and Blank Rome Government Contracts partner Elizabeth N. Jochum will serve as a panelist, along with Samantha Lee (Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Government Accountability Office), Kayleigh Scalzo (Partner, Covington & Burling LLP), Andy Smith (Chief of Bid Protests, U.S. Army), and Evan Williams (Counsel, Mayer Brown LLP). Panelists will discuss important bid protest decisions and developments that you may have missed over the summer. For more information, and to register, please visit: Bid Protest Committee: Annual “Back to School” Panel.

Thursday, September 26, 2024
12:00–1:00 p.m. EDT

Blank Rome’s Washington, DC office will host a meeting of the ABA PCL Intellectual Property Committee, with a virtual option. Committee co-chair and Blank Rome Government Contracts attorney David Bodner will serve as panel moderator, and the panel will include Ted Jung (PEO IWS Chief Architect, Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters), Rizlane Riahi (Deputy Section Head OGC, Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters), and Chinedum Okparaeke (Legal Counsel, Anduril Industries). The panel will discuss the topic, “Consider This When Purchasing or Selling Software,” including pre-award data rights considerations when purchasing software as required by the 2023 changes to DFARS Subpart 227.72. For more information, and to register, please visit: Consider This When Purchasing or Selling Software.

60-Second Sustains: Sparksoft Corporation

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

Sparksoft Corporation
B-422440;.2

  • The awardee’s Systems Security Officer (“SSO”) was awarded a positive finding for holding a certified information systems security professional (“CISSP”) certification. The protester alleged that their SSO held the same certification, as demonstrated in the proposal, but was not awarded an equal positive finding.
  • The agency admitted the unequal treatment was an evaluation error but argued Sparksoft was not prejudiced by the “oversight.” 
  • GAO disagreed, noting that the contemporaneous record showed that when the source selection authority (“SSA”) compared the awardee’s proposal to Sparksoft, the SSA highlighted the awardee’s SSO CISSP certificate as a discriminator between the two proposals.
  • When performing the best-value tradeoff, the SSA acknowledged the price differential between the two proposals was “significant” but concluded that “distinguishing positive features” in the awardee’s proposal justified this premium.
  • GAO found that it was not clear the SSA would have come to the same conclusion if not for the unequal treatment of the offerors’ SSOs.
  • Accordingly, GAO sustained the protest and recommended the agency reevaluate both offerors under the key personnel factor and perform a new best value tradeoff.

Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims

Shane M. Hannon and Scott Arnold ●

The Federal Circuit last Friday issued a decision that is, as the dissent put it, “a very important government contract case.” In Percipient.ai v. United States, the Federal Circuit adopted a narrow construction of the FASA task order bar, which prohibits the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) from hearing a protest challenging the issuance of a task order. At the same time, the Federal Circuit held that under certain circumstances—such as in this case—potential subcontractors can challenge an agency’s violation of procurement law at the COFC.

The Federal Circuit effectively kicked down the drawbridge to the COFC. It increased the variety of cases the COFC can hear and the classes of government contractors—particularly subcontractors—that can bring those cases. Percipient.ai will have significant ramifications on the government contracting community.

Continue reading “Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims”

60-Second Sustains: ITility, LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

ITility, LLC
B-421871.3

  • The protester argued that the Department of Homeland Security had unreasonably assessed the awardee a “positive” based on an incorrect understanding of what the awardee had proposed.
  • Specifically, the protester argued that, while the Agency assigned a positive for an element of the awardee’s proposal relating to enterprise risk management (“ERM”), the awardee’s proposal actually used ERM to refer to enterprise resource management.
  • According to the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), the Agency did not substantively refute this allegation, so GAO sustained the protest.
  • GAO also agreed with the protester that the Agency unreasonably evaluated offers in two other respects:
    1. First, the Agency unreasonably found that both the protester and awardee met key personnel requirements, when the protester had offered personnel that met qualifications identified in the RFP as “preferred.”
    2. Second, the Agency found that the protester’s transition plan “met the requirements,” but failed to document any qualitative evaluation of the proposed plan, including the protester’s plan to have the contract fully staffed by Day 1 as the incumbent.
  • In both instances, GAO agreed that the Agency had ignored a potential discriminator in favor of the protester and sustained the protest grounds.

Timely Protesting Non-Solicitations at GAO

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. and Michael J. Slattery ●

The Government Accountability Office’s (“GAO”) rules for timely protesting non-solicitations can be confusing. Offerors (or potential offerors) diligently monitoring SAM.gov need to focus on the substance of a non-solicitation posting and not simply the name or subject line an agency uses for the posting. Postings titled Notices of Intent, Sources Sought Notices (“SSN”), and Requests for Information (“RFI”) (collectively “pre-solicitation notices”) are common but the information therein can be different even for nearly identical titled postings. For example, one agency’s RFI might request that interested parties submit statements of interest or capabilities while another agency’s RFI has no such requirement. Companies need to carefully review these pre-solicitation notices to determine if they must protest the notice to be timely under GAO’s rules, or if they can wait and protest the terms of a subsequently issued solicitation.

The general rule is that GAO only has protest jurisdiction over actual solicitations—not pre-solicitation notices—since the pre-solicitation notice does not set forth the actual final requirements of an agency, but only a draft of the eventual requirements. Protests of such pre-solicitation documents that do not reflect the final actual requirements of the agency will be dismissed as premature, as they only anticipate improper agency action. See F-Star Zaragosa Port, LLC, B-417414.1, B-417414.2, Apr. 15, 2019, 2019 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 110 at *1; see also AeroSage, LLC, B-415893, B-415894, Apr. 17, 2018, 2018 Comp. Gen. ¶ 142 at 4-5 (explaining that “a sources sought notice is a request for information by the agency and not a solicitation that anticipates the award of a contract”); Onix Networking Corp., B-411841, Nov. 9, 2015, 2015 Comp. Gen. ¶ 330 at 5 (concluding that a request for information provided to prospective vendors is not a “solicitation that embodies [the agency’s] actual requirements”); Sigmatech, Inc., B-296401, Aug. 10, 2005, 2005 Comp. Gen. ¶ 156 at 4 (finding that a “sources sought notice is not a solicitation”).

Continue reading “Timely Protesting Non-Solicitations at GAO”

60-Second Sustains: Criterion Corporation

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

Criterion Corporation
B-422309

  • In Air Force procurement for base operations support services, the Agency had eliminated the protester from consideration for award on the basis that its proposed price was significantly lower than the internal government estimate (“IGE”) and the average proposed price and, therefore, was found unrealistic.
  • The protester challenged its elimination, arguing that it proposed a unique technical approach that supported its low price and that the agency ignored the technical approach, instead conducting a mechanical comparison of the proposed price to the IGE and the average price of other offerors.
  • GAO noted that the purpose of a price realism analysis is to determine whether proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the offeror’s unique method of performance.
  • In this case, GAO found that the Air Force had not considered the entirety of the protester’s technical solution when concluding the proposed price was unrealistic.
  • While the Agency had compared the number of employees the protester proposed and its labor rates, it had not considered its labor mix or whether its technical solution was unique.

60-Second Sustains: Deloitte Consulting LLP and Softrams LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

Deloitte Consulting LLP
B-422094; B-422094.2

  • During the evaluation of the awardee’s quotation, the Department of Homeland Security identified a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (“OCI”) with one of the awardee’s proposed teaming partners.
  • The Agency engaged in discussions with the awardee, in which the awardee informed the Agency that the teaming partner with the potential OCI would be immediately removed from the team and would not participate in the program upon award.
  • Deloitte argued that the agency failed to consider the impact of the teammate’s removal on the awardee’s proposed approach to performance.
  • The Agency provided declarations asserting that the agency had considered the elimination of the teaming partner and its impact on performance, but the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) found that those declarations were unsupported by the contemporaneous record and gave them little weight.
  • GAO sustained the protester’s argument that the Agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because it failed to consider the elimination of the teaming partner.

Deloitte Consulting LLP; Softrams, LLC
B-421801.2,B-421801.3,B-421801.4,B-421801.5,B-421801.6

DISPARATE TREATMENT

  • Both protesters alleged numerous instances where the Library of Congress engaged in disparate treatment by assessing strengths for elements of the awardees’ proposals that were substantially indistinguishable from the protesters’ proposal features that did not receive strengths.
  • In most cases, the Agency argued that the strengths in question stemmed from differences between the proposals or that the protesters’ proposal features were, in fact, captured in the evaluation. However, in a few instances, the Agency instead argued that the disparate treatment was insignificant or did not prejudice the protesters.
  • GAO found these instances amounted to a concession by the Agency that there had been disparate treatment and sustained these protests, since the competition was extremely close and any change in competitive standing could have impacted source selection.
Continue reading “60-Second Sustains: Deloitte Consulting LLP and Softrams LLC”

60-Second Sustains: American Material Handling, Inc.

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

American Material Handling, Inc.
B-422171

  • The Agency, the International Boundary and Water Commission, was buying a brand name or equal wheel loader on a lowest price, technically acceptable basis.
  • The RFQ stated that the proposed loader had to “meet the salient features or specifications of the [brand name product] or exceed the specifications attached,” and included a two-page specification sheet.
  • After receiving quotations, the contracting officer added salient characteristics—not expressly included in the solicitation—to the technical evaluation form to be considered during evaluations.
  • The Agency evaluated the two quotes received and found the protester not technically acceptable based on the salient characteristics added after submission of quotes.
  • GAO sustained the protest of the evaluation, noting that, in a “brand name or equal” acquisition, the agency has an obligation to inform vendors of the characteristics that are essential to the government’s needs; a product offered as an “equal” one need not meet unstated features of the brand name product.
  • Here, GAO found the agency “appeared to be deciding what characteristics it considered to be salient for the first time during its evaluation of quotations.”