Court of Federal Claims | The Contracting Education Academy

March 18, 2021 By cs

‘Rule of Two’ must be analyzed before ‘any’ acquisition

The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) recently affirmed that agencies are required to apply the “Rule of Two” to all federal acquisitions in its decision of Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States.

Further, agencies must give a reasonable explanation supported by factual evidence when canceling solicitations. The decision ensures that small businesses will continue to have robust access to

The two solicitations at issue in this case were for the procurement of training staff for a field artillery school located in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Both solicitations were set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). After the Army awarded the contracts to two SDVOSBs, a third SDVOSB bidder protested the awards, alleging deficiencies in the Army’s evaluation of various factors.

The Army issued Notices of Corrective Action for both contracts, stating that it would cancel both awards, “[r]e-evaluate the requirement and acquisition strategy to ensure that it accurately reflects the Army’s current need,” and either cancel or amend the solicitations. The Army’s internal memorandums indicate that part of the rationale for revisiting the solicitations was because the Army now had a new multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle that encompassed the scope of the two solicitations at issue.

Using a MAIDIQ allows the government to select several possible vendors for an agency to rely on, then ask that small group of vendors to bid against one another to complete each separate task; giving the government a competitive price for each task without initiating a new contract competition and all that it would demand of contracting officers. While the Army initially intended the MAIDIQ to be a small business set-aside, the Army determined, after conducting market research, that given the breadth of the MAIDIQ’s anticipated scope of work, none of the small business proposals could meet the requirements.

On September 13, 2018, the Army issued the MAIDIQ Solicitation as a full and open competition. Five businesses were awarded the MAIDIQ contract, none of which qualified as a small business.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/government-contracts-procurement-ppp/1037100/cofc-rule-of-two-must-be-analyzed-before-any-acquisition

March 2, 2021 By cs

For government-furnished property, the government not granting an equitable adjustment may be a breach of contract

The Federal Circuit’s published decision in BGT Holdings LLC v. United States (Dec. 23, 2020) holds that the government’s refusal to adequately consider a contractor’s request for equitable adjustment (REA) could be considered a breach of contract.

In this case, BGT Holdings LLC (BGT) was appealing a dismissal of its claims by the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in a dispute with the Navy.

BGT was performing a fixed-price contract to build and deliver a gas turbine generator for the Navy. As part of its performance, BGT was to receive and incorporate certain government-furnished equipment (GFE) into its deliverable. Well into performance, the Navy cancelled two of the GFE items, requiring BGT to purchase them on the open market. BGT filed an REA to recoup the costs to purchase the cancelled GFE, consistent with FAR § 52.245-1(d)(2)(i), Government Property and FAR § 52.243-1, Changes – Fixed-Price. The Navy rejected the REA.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered BGT’s five grounds for relief in its complaint:

The Navy’s withdrawal of the GFE was a constructive change, entitling BGT to an equitable adjustment;
The reduction of GFE was an official change to the contract for which BGT was entitled to an equitable adjustment;
The Navy breached its contractual duty to deliver the GFE, and therefore BGT was entitled to damages;
The Navy breached its contractual duty to provide an equitable adjustment after failing to deliver the GFE and obligating BGT to provide it; and
The Navy breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to deliver the GFE.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/government-contracts-procurement-ppp/1040080/for-government-furnished-property-the-government-not-granting-an-equitable-adjustment-may-be-a-breach-of-contract

February 23, 2021 By cs

Size recertification prior to contract award – When is it required?

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision in HWI Gear, Inc. v. United States highlights the importance of reviewing a solicitation to determine if the text of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-28 is included in it, as well as the risk of engaging in corporate transactions while a proposal to a procuring agency is pending.

In this case, the COFC held that an offeror was required to recertify its size status during a procurement, and the agency’s failure to enforce this requirement invalidated the award.

In HWI Gear, Mechanix Wear, Inc. (Mechanix) and HWI Gear, Inc. (HWI) submitted proposals in response to a solicitation set aside for small businesses. After proposal submission but before award, Mechanix informed the procuring agency that it had changed its corporate structure from a corporation to a limited liability company and changed its corporate name, but that all other terms and conditions in its proposal remained unchanged. Mechanix, however, did not inform the agency that its change in corporate structure was the result of a merger with a large business and that Mechanix no longer qualified as a small business under the size standard established for the procurement. The agency ultimately selected Mechanix as the awardee, and HWI filed a bid protest challenging the agency’s evaluation.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/size-recertification-prior-to-award-4583775/

February 16, 2021 By cs

Bid protests: The what, who, when, and where

When thinking about bid protests, it is helpful to first look at the basics.

What is a bid protest,
Who can file a bid protest,
When is a bid protest filed, and
Where is a bid protest filed?

For anyone going through a bid protest, hiring a knowledgeable attorney who is experienced in this area can be beneficial in providing guidance through the process. But as a primer, here is an outline of the what, who, when and where of bid protests involving government contracts.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/bid-protests-the-what-who-when-and-where-7486301/

January 14, 2021 By cs

COFC confirms ‘rule of two’ analysis applies before agency decides to utilize a multiple-award vehicle

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

The central question surrounding the case was whether the U.S. Army could cancel a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8 service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside procurement under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and move the requirement to a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle that the plaintiff, The Tolliver Group, Inc. (Tolliver), did not hold.

In its protest, Tolliver argued, in part, that the Army’s actions violated the Rule of Two because the agency was required to determine whether two or more small businesses were capable of performing the requirement prior to choosing to put the procurement on the MAIDIQ contract.

The COFC’s decision confirms that the Rule of Two analysis applies before an agency elects to procure a requirement from a multiple-award contract (MAC) vehicle under FAR Part 16.5.

The Rule of Two requires contracting officers to set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition threshold for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that (1) offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and (2) the award will be made at fair market prices.

In Tolliver, the Army argued that a Rule of Two analysis was not required because—according the Small Business Jobs Act, as implemented in 15 U.S.C. § 644(r)—federal agencies have the discretion to issue MACs without first conducting a Rule of Two analysis to determine whether it should be set aside for small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cofc-confirms-rule-of-two-analysis-83418/

The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) recently affirmed that agencies are required to apply the “Rule of Two” to all federal acquisitions in its decision of Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States.

The Federal Circuit’s published decision in BGT Holdings LLC v. United States (Dec. 23, 2020) holds that the government’s refusal to adequately consider a contractor’s request for equitable adjustment (REA) could be considered a breach of contract.

When thinking about bid protests, it is helpful to first look at the basics.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

Search this Website