Articles
🔒 Members Only · Protests & Claims BriefYou’ve reached the member portion of this brief.Members read the full analysis and the source documents in every Brief, six days a week.
Withdrawal from Consideration for Sole Source 8(a) Award Does Not Derail Size Determination; SBA No. SIZ-5904, Size Appeal of AWA Business Corp.
Agency Reasonably Concerned that Low Pay for Supervisors Would Limit Protester’s Ability to Recruit, Perform; GAO B-414360.2, Pinnacle Solutions Inc.
Agency Not Required to Conduct Best Value Tradeoff When Awardee is Much Higher Rated and Much Lower Priced; COFC No. 18-512C, Technik Inc. v. United States and VSolvit LLC
Agency Reasonably Evaluated Past Performance of JV Partners; GAO B-415873, DynCorp International LLC; AAR Supply Chain Inc.
Agency Reasonably Required Offerors to Identify Multiple Potential New Hires for Critical, Difficult-to-Fill Positions; GAO B-415812.2, Trailboss Enterprises Inc.
Technically Unacceptable Offer Precludes Vendor from Challenging Awardee’s Size; SBA No. SIZ-5903, Size Appeal of ILKA Technologies Inc.
Protester’s Lack of Specificity Cannot Be Remedied on Appeal; SBA No. SIZ-5902, Size Appeal of Arrow Moving & Storage—Mayflower Transit
Novation Agreement Does Not Preclude Successor Contractor from Pursuing Claims Tolled Prior to Novation; ASBCA No. 61461, Appeal of Cooper/Ports America LLC
Allegation That Awardee Lacked Financial Resources to Perform Contract Insufficient for GAO to Review Responsibility Determination; GAO B-415941, CASS Professional Services Corp.
Agency Failed to Terminate Lease Within Window Allowed by Contract; CBCA 5543, PJP Building Six LC v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Policy Limiting Percentage of Work That Can Be Awarded to Any One Contractor Does Not Impermissibly Restrict Competition and Was Not Irrational; COFC No. 18-200C, National Government Services v. United States
Agency Did Not Err in Considering the Ability of Proposed Key Person to Innovate Even Though “Innovation” Was Not a Specific Evaluation Criterion for the Position; COFC No. 16-775C, Tetra Tech, Inc. v. United States
Contractor’s Failure To Comply With CDA Requirements Precludes ASBCA’s Review Of Request For Additional Payment, ASBCA No. 61234, Hejran Hejrat Co. LTD
ASBCA Denies Appeal of Claim Seeking Payment on Nonexistent Contract; ASBCA No. 59819, Black Tiger Company
Ominous CLOUD for Contractors Working Internationally
Agency’s Failure to Take into Account Benefits of Protester’s Proposal Sufficient to Establish Possibility of Prejudice; GAO B-414459.4, Dynaxys LLC
NAICS Code for Warehousing and Supply Chain Services Correct, Even Though Acquisition of Goods Accounts for Greater Percentage of Contract Value; COFC No. 17-1933C, SupplyCore Inc. v. United States and Science Applications International Corp.
Error in Rating Awardee’s Past Performance Benefited Protester; GAO B-415178.2, O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company LLC
Number of Positive CPARS Ratings Not a Factor in Past Performance Rating; GAO B-415987, Onsite OHS Inc.
Keep reading
