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.

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts Practice and Attorneys Highly Ranked in Chambers USA and The Legal 500

We are thrilled to share Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice was recently highly ranked by two prestigious annual legal rankings publications:

Chambers USA 2024

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice was ranked in Band 2 in Government Contracts: The Elite, USA in the Chambers USA 2024 rankings, placing our team among the very top group of fewer than 50 law firms in the nationwide rankings.

Chambers quoted a government contracts reference as saying that “Blank Rome is a sophisticated firm that knows the commercial implications of the activities for which they … provided legal support.”

To view all of Blank Rome’s Chambers USA 2024 rankings, please visit our website.

The Legal 500 United States 2024

Blank Rome was again highly ranked among the top nationwide firms as a “Recommended Firm” in the area of “Government Contracts” in The Legal 500 United States 2024. Testimonials about our practice included:

“The Blank Rome Government Contracts practice group is uncommonly business-oriented.”

“Great people, great communication, creative approaches to legal arguments.”

“Excellent communication, always available when you need them.”

To view all of Blank Rome’s Legal 500 United States 2024 rankings, please visit our website.

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.

3 Takeaways from Recent U.S. Regulatory Actions Implementing AUKUS

Anthony Rapa, George T. Boggs, Justin A. Chiarodo, and Dimitri DeChurch-Silva ●

As a next step in the U.S. government’s implementation of the trilateral AUKUS security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom (“UK”), the U.S. Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently took measures to further ease export controls among the member countries. Reducing export control restrictions is the linchpin to implementing the AUKUS pact, which aims to bolster security cooperation and defense trade between Australia, the UK, and the United States.

While DDTC stopped short of concretely scaling back export controls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), it proposed a framework to do so in the coming year (likely to turn on Australia and the UK completing the adoption of ITAR-equivalent export controls and exemptions). Meanwhile, BIS lifted a range of controls under the Export Administration Regulations, placing Australia and the UK on nearly equal footing with Canada.

Read the full client alert on our website.

FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services

Sara N. Gerber ●

As part of the Biden administration’s effort to use federal purchasing power to tackle climate change, the FAR Council issued a final rule, effective May 22, 2024, requiring agencies to procure “sustainable products and services,” to the “maximum extent practicable.” The “sustainable products and services” rule is just one of several proposed rules and directives intended to compel the government and government contractors to do business in a more environmentally sustainable way.

Under the final rule, the procurement of sustainable products and services is considered “practicable” if the products or services meet “reasonable performance requirements” and can be acquired “competitively within a reasonable performance schedule” and at “a reasonable price.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 23.103(a)(1). To determine whether the price is reasonable, the regulation directs agencies to “consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product.” FAR 23.103(a)(2). If an agency determines that it is not practicable to procure sustainable products or services, the contracting officer must document the reason in writing in the contract file. FAR 23.103(a)(2).

Continue reading “FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services”

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”

OMB Embraces Government Use of Artificial Intelligence

Robyn N. Burrows and Sara N. Gerber ●

Last month, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to adopt artificial intelligence (“AI”) and advance its use to inform and carry out agency actions. OMB’s new policy addresses three main areas it views as necessary for responsibly deploying AI in agency decision-making: (1) strengthening AI governance; (2) advancing AI innovation; and (3) managing risks from the use of AI. With OMB encouraging the use of AI to streamline agency actions wherever possible, government contractors can also expect to see AI increasingly used in the procurement process.

AI Governance

OMB directed agencies to designate a Chief AI Officer whose responsibilities will include coordinating agency use of AI, developing a workforce with the skillsets necessary for implementing AI, and “identifying and prioritizing appropriate uses of AI that will advance both their agency’s mission and equitable outcomes.”

The Chief AI Officer is also tasked with ensuring that AI code and the data used to develop and test AI are inventoried and shared in data repositories. That individual must also prepare and submit annually to OMB an “AI use case inventory” documenting instances in which AI is used to address a particular need. For example, the Department of State’s (“DOS”) AI Inventory includes a bot that it developed “to automate the data entry in the Federal Procurement Data System” which the State Department reports has reduced the burden on the agency’s procurement staff and improved compliance on DATA Act reporting.

Continue reading “OMB Embraces Government Use of Artificial Intelligence”

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.
Exit mobile version
%%footer%%