Stan Hinton

Home
Contact Me
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Statutes
Regulations
Directives
Courts
GAO
Boards
SBA
Agency Sites
More Agencies
Periodicals
Research
 

 Successful GAO Protests (2000-2004)



See also Successful GAO Protests (2005 -- Present)

Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision

 

Solicitation Language and Interpretation

Oregon Potato Co., B-294839 (Dec. 27, 2004) (agency failed to include important information in solicitation, without which protesters could not compete intelligently and on an equal basis)

Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-293342.2 (Mar. 19, 2004) (agency's decision to reopen competition after award to protester and exposure of its price was not justified because there was no prejudicial defect in the solicitation)

Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4, .5, .6, .7, .8 (Nov. 17, 2003) (staffing; solicitation language misled offeror into proposing staffing approach agency found unacceptable)

AirTrak Travel, et al. B-292101, .2, .3, .4, .5 (June 30, 2003) (solicitation should have been reopened to all potential offerors where amendment issued after proposals were received materially changed solicitation; defective price evaluation--evaluation of prices for categories of services that will not be provided under contract; disputes over admission of attorneys to protective order)

C. Lawrence construction Co., B-290709 (Sep. 20, 2002) (solicitation requiring named manufacturers' signs is defective where there is no evidence this is required to meet the agency's minimum needs)

TRS Research, B-290644 (Sep. 13, 2002) (agency failed to justify bundled requirement and failed to coordinate its intended procurement with SBA)

Vantex Service Corp., B-290415 (Aug. 8, 2002) (bundled solicitation was improper where agency has not shown bundling was required to meet its minimum needs)

Apex Support Services, Inc., B-288936, .2 (Dec. 12, 2001) (solicitation's performance bond has not been shown to be required to protect Government's interests and unduly restricts competition)

Intertribal Bison Cooperative, B-288658 (Nov. 30, 2001) (solicitation open to cooperatives not allowed by applicable statute is improper)

COBRO Corp., B-287578.2 (Oct. 15, 2001) (OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison was flawed where solicitation contained overly restrictive terms)

Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280 (Oct. 10, 2001) (in solicitation using simplified acquisition procedures but requiring detailed written proposals, disclosure of relative evaluation weights was required despite FAR language to the contrary (!); selection decision which lacks a rationale for tradeoff analysis is improper)

Consortium Argenbright Security-Katrantzos Security, B-288126, .2 (Sep. 26, 2001) (solicitation inviting offers in local currency allows offers submitted in euros where country has adopted euros as national currency)

The Arora Group, Inc., B-288127 (Sep. 14, 2001) (solicitation terms were latently ambiguous where offerors based proposals on differing, reasonable interpretation; offeror who ranked fifth out of seven was interested party with standing to file protest)

Meridian Management Corp., B-285127 (July 19, 2000) (agency cannot exclude technically acceptable proposal from competitive range without any evaluation of price; solicitation was defective in not putting offerors on notice of certain requirements)

SWR, Inc., B-284075, .2 (Feb. 16, 2000) (award to contractor whose proposal failed to conform to several material solicitation requirements)

 

 

Faulty Evaluations; Lack of Meaningful Discussions

ProTech Corp., B-294818 (Dec. 30, 2004) (weight given evaluation factors by source selection committee differed from weight announced in solicitation)

The MIL Corp., B-294836 (Dec. 30, 2004) (agency unfairly penalized protester for lack of past performance information and failed to consider price as a meaningful evaluation factor pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 253a(c)(1)(B)(2000)

Spherix, Inc., B-294572, .2 (Dec. 1, 2004) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions; failure to properly evaluate protester's proposed marketing and staffing approach)

Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training, & Support, B-292836.8, .9, .10 (Nov. 24, 2004) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions; unreasonably vague discussions; conducting post final proposal discussions only with awardee, which resulted in material changes to proposal)

University Research Co., LLC, B-294358, .2, .3, .4, .5 (Oct. 28, 2004) (Source Selection Official misrepresented award recommendation of project officers and did not offer any basis for rejecting their recommendation)

Greenlee Construction, Inc., B-294338 (Oct. 26, 2004) (agency lacked rational basis to cancel solicitation rather than accepting protester's low-priced proposal)

SYMVIONICS, Inc., B-293824.2 (Oct. 8, 2004) (agency provided material information to only one offeror)

Alion Science & Technology Corp., B-294159, .2 (Sep. 10, 2004) (vague solicitation requirements may not accurately reflect agency's needs and result in uncertainty as to total evaluated cost)

Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc., B-293706.5 (Sep. 10, 2004) (Agency's corrective action in response to prior protest was faulty because it conducted discussions with only one offeror instead of all in prior competitive range)

Liquidity Services, Inc., B-294053 (Aug. 16, 2004) (unreasonable price evaluation)

Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc., B-293045.2 (July 26, 2004) (agency's implementation of corrective action was defective where it failed to conduct discussions with all offerors in the competitive range)

Tiger Enterprises, Inc., B-293951 (July 26, 2004) (evaluation lacks basis in the record)

Resource Consultants, Inc. B-293073.3, .5, .6 (June 2, 2004) (awardee's final price materially altered its staffing (technical) approach in contravention of solicitation requirements)

Lockheed Martin Corp., B-293679, .2, .3 (May 27, 2004) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions with protester; provision of inaccurate information to protester during discussions; agency improperly gave awardee credit for item not addressed in its proposal)

Ashe Facility Services, Inc., B-292218.3, .4 (Mar. 31, 2004) (solicitation contained latent ambiguity; agency evaluated awardee's, but not protester's, key personnel under corporate experience factor)

Keeton Corrections, Inc., B-293348 (Mar. 4, 2004) (faulty past performance evaluation)

Shields & Dean Concessions, Inc., B-292901.2, .3 (Feb. 23, 2004) (failure to evaluate concessions contract proposals in accordance with terms of prospectus)

Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-293134 (Feb. 6, 2004) (lack of documentation to support source selection decision; failure to apply HUBZone price evaluation preference)

The Arora Group, B-293102 (Feb. 2, 2004) (evaluation lacked rational basis where protester clearly provided the information at issue re key personnel during discussions)

Computer Information Specialist, Inc., B-293049, .2 (Jan 23, 2004) (faulty evaluation failed to note weaknesses in awardee's proposal and evaluation of protester's proposal lacked a factual basis or was unrelated to solicitation's evaluation criteria)

ACS Government Services, Inc., B-293014 (Jan. 20, 2004) (awardee misrepresented availability of three key personnel)

SOS Interpreting, LTD, B-293026, .2, .3 (Jan 20, 2004) (SSA's evaluation ignored differences noted by evaluators in technical proposals; flawed option year price evaluations)

Locus Technology Inc., B-293012 (Jan. 16, 2004) (agency failed to consider significant aspects of protester's revised proposal and failed to consider offerors' proposed prices in source selection decision)

Kaman Dayron, Inc., B-292997 (Jan. 15, 2004) (flawed finding of equivalence between protester and awardee in experience in making similar fuses to those required by the solicitation)

Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2, .3, .4 (Jan. 7, 2004) (agency improperly gave credit under past performance and experience for a past contract that was considerably smaller than the solicited contract)

Cygnus Corp., B-292649.3, .4 (Dec. 30, 2003) (lack of meaningful discussions)

KMR, LLC, B-292860 (Dec. 22, 2003) (flawed past performance evaluation; equal rating despite unequal experience)

Lockheed Martin Information Systems, B-292836, .2, .3, .4 (Dec. 18, 2003) (faulty evaluation; awardee's proposal did not meet solicitation requirement for small business participation)

Continental RPVs, B-292768.2, .3 (Dec. 11, 2003) (flawed past performance evaluation absent record that past work was the same or similar to that required under the solicitation)

e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761 (Dec. 3, 2003) (improper price/technical trade-off evaluation where price was not meaningfully considered and source selection authority did not understand technical evaluation)

Atlantic Research marketing Systems, Inc., B-292743 (Dec. 1, 2003) (agency removed a proposal from consideration for failing to offer certain product improvements despite fact that solicitation said it would not do that)

Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4, .5, .6, .7, .8 (Nov. 17, 2003) (staffing; solicitation language misled offeror into proposing staffing approach agency found unacceptable)

TDS, Inc., B-292674 (Nov. 12, 2003) (lack of meaningful discussions)

ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., B-292602, .2 (Oct. 21, 2003) (cost/technical trade-off evaluation flawed where agency concedes errors that might have had the effect of doubling awardee's margin of technical superiority; agency’s post-protest confirmation of its prior cost/technical tradeoff, conducted “in the heat of an adversarial process,” is not credible)

Beautify Professional Services Corp., B-291954.3 (Oct. 6, 2003) (evaluation ignored protester's substantially lower price and failed to justify payment of substantial price premium)

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., B-292476 (Oct. 1, 2003) (flawed evaluation of awardee's past performance in terms of record of integrity business ethics and flawed affirmative responsibility determination)

Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.; Wyle Laboratories, Inc.,  B- 292354, -292388 (Sep. 2, 2003) (flawed adjustments related to staffing levels in cost realism evaluation that were inconsistent with findings of technical evaluation)

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc., B-292322, .2, .3 (Aug. 25, 2003) (flawed cost/technical trade-off; no explanation why selecting the lower-priced, lower technically rated proposal was preferable to higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal; improper assignment of same rating in one subcategory when individual evaluations indicated a distinction was justifiable)

Bechtel Hanford, Inc., B-292288, .2, .3 (Aug. 13, 2003) (flawed cost realism evaluation where agency emphasized importance of that factor in the solicitation and then awarded contract to offeror whose cost had been found to be unrealistic)

AirTrak Travel, et al. B-292101, .2, .3, .4, .5 (June 30, 2003) (solicitation should have been reopened to all potential offerors where amendment issued after proposals were received materially changed solicitation; defective price evaluation--evaluation of prices for categories of services that will not be provided under contract; disputes over admission of attorneys to protective order)

Dismas Charities, Inc., B-292091 (June 25, 2003) (evaluation according to scheme differing from scheme announced in solicitation; defective past performance evaluation; failure to conduct meaningful discussions; agency's self-serving reevaluation "in the heat of an adversarial process" failed to establish protester was not prejudiced by errors in original evaluation)

T Square Logistics Services Corp., B-291851 (Apr. 15, 2003) (agency's award of "excellent" technical rating under two subfactors of oral presentation when awardee did not even address these items in its oral presentation was unreasonable)

SRS Technologies, B-291618.2, .3 (Feb. 24, 2003) (improper cost realism analysis; where solicitation did not prohibit uncompensated overtime, agency improperly downgraded protester's proposal for proposing it)

Garner Multimedia Inc., B-291651 (Feb. 11, 2003) (agency lacked rational basis for rejecting low priced proposal as technically unacceptable where solicitation did not include any information as to what was to be included in technical proposal)

Omniplex World Services Corp., B-290996.2 (Jan. 27, 2003) (use of unpublished evaluation factor for direct corporate experience to eliminate firm from competitive range was improper)

Burns and Roe Services Corp., B-291530 (Jan. 23, 2003) (agency failed to properly evaluate extent of small business participation as a percentage of total contract value)

Martin Electronics, Inc. B-290846.3 , .4 (Dec. 23, 2002) (unequal discussions; failure to include recent negative past performance information in past performance evaluation)

CSE Construction, B-291268.2 (Dec. 16, 2002) (improper price/technical trade-off analysis; unequal evaluation--two similar technical proposals evaluated differently)

ITT Federal Services International Corp., B-289863.4, .6, .7, .8 (Dec. 16, 2002) (defective cost realism evaluation)

Ashland Sales and Service Co., B-291206 (Dec. 5, 2002) (flawed price/technical trade-off where technical evaluation made higher-rated technical proposal seem much more technically superior than it actually was)

Global Communications Solutions, Inc., B-291113 (Nov. 15, 2002) (defective price evaluation based on three-year period where solicitation stated it would based on ten-year period)

Mnemonics, Inc., B-290961 (Oct. 28, 2002) (evaluation of relative strengths and weaknesses was improper where solicitation stated technical proposals would be evaluated only on "pass/fail" basis)

Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, inc., B-290732 (Sep. 25, 2002) (no basis in the the record supports agency's decision to select higher technically rated, higher priced proposal)

M&S Farms, Inc., B-290599 (Sep. 5, 2002) (evaluation and source selection decision contain multiple, material defects)

Sabreliner Corp., B-290515, .2, .3 (Aug. 21, 2002) (agency failed to evaluate material portion of awardee's technical proposal)

Inter-Con security Systems, Inc., B-290493, .2 (Aug. 14, 2002) (awardee's proposal for guard services contract did not qualify for award evaluation preference to be gained only if 80% of principal management positions were held by U.S. citizens) 

Gemmo Impianti SpA, B-290427 (Aug. 9, 2002) (defective technical evaluation; defective evaluation of relative price differential between protester and awardee)

National City Bank of Indiana, B-287608.3 (Aug. 7, 2002) (improper cost realism evaluation of proposed staffing levels)

Marshall-Putnam Soil and Water Conservation District, B-289949, .2 (May 29, 2002) (awardee's nonconforming proposal did not fulfill solicitation's technical requirements; improper price evaluation)

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-289942, .2 (May 24, 2002) (inadequate rationale for cost/technical tradeoff decision)

DynCorp International LLC, B-289863, .2 (May 13, 2002) (unequal comparison of offers in cost evaluation; latent ambiguity in solicitation re subcontractor information required in proposals)

A & D Fire Protection, Inc., B-288852.2 (May 2, 2002) (agency improperly credited awardee's statement of intention or desire to finish construction project ahead of required schedule as a commitment to do so; agency improperly ignored CICA's requirements for overriding a stay)

Wilson Beret Co., B-289685 (Apr. 9, 2002) (improper evaluations of two subfactors under manufacturing plan evaluation factor)

Sonetronics, Inc., B-289459.2 (Mar. 18, 2002) (improper credit for uncompleted (barely begun) contract in past performance evaluation)

Kathryn Huddleston and Assocs., Ltd., B-289453 (Mar. 11, 2002) (improper competitive range determination limited to one company whose quotation contained similar deficiencies to other quotes that could have been improved through discussions if included in the competitive range)

Symtech Corp., B-289332 (Feb. 19, 2002) (no basis for excluding protester's proposal from competitive range on grounds it was technically unacceptable)

Priority One Services, Inc., B-288836, .2 (Dec. 17, 2001) (improper cost realism evaluation; unequal discussions with only one offeror)

A & D Fire Protection Inc., B-288852 (Dec. 12, 2001) (failure to consider protester's low overall price in source selection)

Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc.. B-288468 (Nov. 8, 2001) (unequal assessment of offerors' past performance information)

Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280 (Oct. 10, 2001) (in solicitation using simplified acquisition procedures but requiring detailed written proposals, disclosure of relative evaluation weights was required despite FAR language to the contrary (!); selection decision which lacks a rationale for tradeoff analysis is improper)

Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-287949.2 (July 27, 2001) (protest against evaluation is sustained where agency does not contest protest)

Bank of America, B-287608, .2 (July 26, 2001) (lack of meaningful discussions)

Summit Research Corp., B-287523, .3 (July 12, 2001) (agency failed to include small business offeror, itself, in its evaluation of small business participation and failed to heed clear advance notice from DCAA that a key employee of offeror was no longer with the company)

Eurest Support Services, B-285813.3, .4, .5; 285882.4, .5, .7 (July 3, 2001) (improper realism assessment of low proposed target price for fixed-price incentive contracts)

Beacon Auto Parts, B-287483 (June 13, 2001) (flawed best value determination: agency failed to consider whether awardee's higher rated proposal was worth its higher price)

Systems Management, Inc; Qualimetrics, inc., B-287032.3, .4 (Apr. 16, 2001) (agency relaxed material solicitation for awardee without informing other offerors or allowing them to propose to the relaxed requirement)

Universal Yacht Services, Inc., B-287071, .2 (Apr. 4, 2001) (proposal failed to conform to material solicitation requirement and, therefore, was technically unacceptable)

Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013, .2 (Mar. 30, 2001) (winning proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirement; agency improperly abandoned required cost-technical tradeoff for award to lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal)

Kruger Construction, Inc., B-286960 (Mar. 15, 2001) (improper price evaluation--adding prices for two alternate options when agency knew it could not exercise both of them)

Tennier Industries, Inc., B-286706.2, .3 (Mar. 14, 2001) (source selection decision based on items not mentioned in the solicitation as evaluation factors)

Cortland Memorial Hospital, B-286890 (Mar. 5, 2001) (agency waived solicitation requirements without advising protester it was doing so)

International Resources Group, B-286663 (Jan. 31, 2001) (improper discussions with only one offeror after receipt of final proposals)

SWR, Inc., B-286161.2 (Jan. 24, 2001) (lack of meaningful discussions: rejection of proposal as lacking required experience was unreasonable where agency did not identify that issue as a weakness during discussions and protester represented it had the experience and had provided documents evidencing that experience to the agency during a site visit)

Satellite Services, Inc., B-286508, .2 (Jan. 18, 2001) (flawed best-value tradeoff analysis; relaxation of material requirement for awardee)

OSI Collection Services, Inc., B-286597, .2 (Jan. 17, 2001) (flawed past performance evaluation)

Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corp., B-286201, .2, .3 (Dec. 14, 2000) (improper price evaluation)

Wackenhut International, Inc., B-286193 (Dec. 11, 2000) (failure to perform required evaluation of offerors' compensation plans)

Wackenhut Services, Inc., B-286037, .2 (Nov. 14, 2000) (lack of documentation of tradeoff analysis and rationale for award decision; post-protest tradeoff analysis is unavailing)

Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906 (Nov. 1, 2000) (flawed corporate experience, financial systems, and cost evaluations)

Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., B-285777 (Oct. 10, 2000) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions; flaws in evaluation of protester's oral presentation)

Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-285351, .2 (Aug. 17, 2000) (mechanical and unsupported application of undisclosed evaluation standards)

Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288, .2 (Aug. 14, 2000) (unreasonable evaluation under Quality factor and resulting unreasonable tradeoff evaluation)

Green Valley Transportation, Inc., B-285283 (Aug. 9, 2000) (unreasonable past performance evaluation)

Meridian Management Corp., B-285127 (July 19, 2000) (agency cannot exclude technically acceptable proposal from competitive range without any evaluation of price; solicitation was defect in not putting offerors on notice of certain requirements)

Beneco Enterprises, Inc., B-283512.3 (July 10, 2000) (unreasonable past performance evaluation)

J & J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2, .3 (June 5, 2000) (inadequate documentation of oral discussions and final tradeoff analysis; flaws in evaluation)

Lloyd H. Kessler, Inc., B-284603 (May24, 2000) (award improper because important evaluation subfactor should have been disclosed in solicitation) 

Computer Products, Inc., B-284702 (May 24, 2000) (agency improperly converted best value procurement (in which technical factors were supposed to be more important than price) into one for lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer)

Maritime Berthing, Inc., B-284123.3 (Apr. 27, 2000) (conclusion that awardee's proposal met solicitation requirement was unreasonable where agency's evaluators were provided significant countervailing evidence from agency's on-site representative)

Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., B-283793.5, .6 (Mar. 20, 2000) (adjustment of proposed costs by agency is based on its misunderstanding of proposal; inadequate documentation of agency evaluation)

CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2, .3 (Mar. 15, 2000) (failure to conduct meaningful discussion; numerous misevaluations of proposals)

The Futures Group International, B-281274.5, .6, .7 (Mar. 10, 2000) (agency's response to prior successful protest against cost realism analysis unreasonably ignored DCAA finding that awardee's proposed indirect cost rates were materially understated)

Columbia Research Corp., B-284157 (Feb. 28, 2000) (improper exclusion of protester from competitive range due to evaluation errors)

AIU North America, Inc., B-283743.2 (Feb. 16, 2000) (faulty technical evaluation; faulty evaluation of available corporate resources)

Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-281287.10, .11 (Feb. 8, 2000) (agency improperly relaxed material solicitation requirement for qualifications of key personnel; agency failed to evaluate staffing in accordance with stated evaluation scheme)

Saco Defense Corp., B-283885 (Jan. 20, 2000) (faulty evaluation of quality factor) 

 

Responsiveness; Bid Corrections; Timeliness Issues

CAMS Inc., B-292546 (Oct. 14, 2003) (agency improperly placed order on basis of quotation which offered terms differing from mandatory solicitation requirement)

Payne Construction, B-291629 (Feb. 4, 2003) (quotation received under simplified acquisition procedures before proposals in response to amended solicitation were evaluated should not have been rejected as late, even though protester had not submitted quotation in response to original solicitation)

SKJ & Assocs., Inc., B-291533 (Jan. 13, 2003) (rejection of technical proposal under RFQ was unreasonable where solicitation gave no guidance as to what should be included in proposal)

Elementar Americas, Inc., B-289115 (Jan. 11, 2002) (unreasonable evaluation of proposed "or equal" product under RFQ pursuant to simplified acquisition procedures)

Aleman & Assocs., Inc., B-287275.2; 287356.2 (July 2, 2001) (cancellation of RFQ for 1 year of janitorial and grounds maintenance services, with 4 option years, on the basis that the services had to be procured pursuant to the Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act, was improper where only services for 240 days or fewer had to be acquired under the statute)

Newfield Construction, Inc., B-286912 (Feb. 6, 2001) (agency improperly accepted nonresponsive bid with mathematical errors that precluded a determination of the precise nature of the error or the intended bid)

Jackson Enterprises, B-286688 (Feb. 5, 2001) (failure to acknowledge solicitation amendment that did not include material requirements was not grounds for rejection of bid)

G & J Small Construction, Inc., B-286716 (Feb. 5, 2001) (agency should have considered bidder's post-bid-opening explanation for different appearance of signatures on bid)

Farmland National Beef, B-286607, .2 (Jan. 24, 2001) (failure of awardee's bid to conform to material solicitation requirement--bid took specific exception to that requirement)

Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems, Ltd., B-286488 (Jan. 17, 2001) (agency improperly allowed bidder to correct its bid, after properly rejecting protester's bid for the same mistake!)

John D. Lucas Printing Co., B-285730 (Sep. 20, 2000)(failure to acknowledge material amendment to solicitation renders bid nonresponsive)

STG, Inc., B-285910 (Sep. 20, 2000) (agency should have considered offer submitted prior to issuance of RFP since agency told protester it would do so)

Cooper Construction, Inc., B-285880 (Sep. 18, 2000) (agency should have allowed bid mistake correction where worksheets showed mistake and intended bid by clear and convincing evidence)

Power Connector, Inc., B-285395 (Aug. 24, 2000) (award to one offering to supply foreign, imported leather violated term of solicitation)

D. B. I. Waste Systems, Inc., B-285049 (July 10, 2000) (agency improperly rejected bid under IFB as nonresponsive when it was low and committed bidder to perform in accordance with all material requirements of solicitation)

Harris Excavating, B-284820 (June 12, 2000) (bid is responsive despite minor discrepancies where reasonably available extrinsic evidence at the time of bid opening establishes that bidder and principal are the same entity and that surety will be liable on its bond)

G.E.G. Sugar Blues & Noe's Colors, B-284117 (Feb. 22, 2000) (agency should have considered low quote received before award where solicitation did not specify due date for quotations)

John C. Grimberg Co., B-284013 (Feb. 2, 2000) (determination of low bid on IFB must not include additive items that were not awarded)

Tishman Construction Corp., B-292097 (May 29, 2003) (where solicitation required both paper and electronic versions of proposal, timely delivery of electronic version was sufficient despite late delivery of paper version, which should have been waived as minor informality)

GTSI Corp., B-286979 (Mar. 22, 2001) (essentially overturns agency level protest victory; below cost offer for fixed-price contract is not illegal; agency could allow one offeror to bid $0.00 for a line item while telling another offeror it could not enter "NSP" for line item)

 

 

OMB Circular A-76 (and In-House versus Outsourcing) Cost Comparisons and Evaluations

Career Quest, a Division of Syllan Careers, Inc., B-293435.2, .3 (Aug. 2, 2004) (misevaluation of in-house staffing levels under OMB Circular A-76)

BAE Systems Technical Services, Inc. B-293070 (Jan. 28, 2004) (defective in-house cost estimate in OMB Circular A-76 procurement)

EDP Enterprises, Inc., B-284533.6 (may 19, 2003) (improper bundling in OMB A-76 procurement)

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., B-291345, .2 (Dec. 23, 2002) (agency's decision to eliminate, as technically unacceptable, the only commercial offer received in an OMB Circular A-76 procurement lacked rational basis)

Sodexho Management, Inc., B-289605.2 (July 5, 2002) (Government's failure to notify offerors that it planned to use non-appropriated fund instrumentality employees as a result of OMB Circular A-76 procurement resulted in unfair competition)

Del-Jen, Inc., B-287273.2 (Jan. 23, 2002) (in OMB Circular A-76 procurement, determination of costs of contract administration was unreasonable)

The Jones/Hill Joint Venture, B-286194.4, .5, .6 (Dec. 5, 2001) (numerous defects in study favoring in-house work in OMB Circular A-76 solicitation, including conflict of interest)

COBRO Corp., B-287578.2 (Oct. 15, 2001) (OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison was flawed where solicitation contained overly restrictive terms)

DynCorp Technical Services LLC, B-284833.3, .4 (July 17, 2001) (defects in OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison and proposal evaluation)

BAE Systems, B-287189, .2 (May 14, 2001) (improper cost comparison and price/technical tradeoff in OMB Circular A-76 competition)

Trajen, Inc., B-284310, .2 (Mar. 28, 2000) (OMB Circular A-76 revised cost comparison lacks reasonable basis)

Imaging Systems Technology, B-283817.3 (Dec. 19, 2000) (cancellation of solicitation was improper where determination that in-house performance would cost less was not made on basis of fair cost comparison)

Rice Services, Ltd., B-284997 (June 29, 2000) (unreasonable OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison)

Aberdeen Technical Services, B-283727.2 (Feb. 22, 2000) (faulty OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison)

 

FSS Contracts and Task Order Issues

American Systems Consulting, Inc., B-294664 (Dec. 13, 2004) (awarding blanket purchase agreement to FSS vendor who quoted items not under its FSS contract was not proper)

Armed Forces Merchandise outlet, Inc., B-294281 (Oct. 12, 2004) (issuance of delivery order for product outside scope of firm's FSS contract was improper)

Information Ventures, Inc., B-293743 (May 20, 2004) (use of FSS to obtain services was improper where solicited services were not within scope of that schedule)

Anteon Corp., B-293523, .2 (Mar. 29, 2004) (task order was outside scope of GSA ID/IQ contract)

CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc., B-292995.2, .3 (Feb. 13, 2004) (multiple problems with evaluation and award under FSS solicitation)

Symplicity Corp., B-291902 (Apr. 29, 2003) (improper award of task order under FSS contract for services and personnel not covered by the contract; pricing structure proposed by awardee could not be fairly compared to other vendors' prices)

OMNIPLEX World Services Corp., B-291105 (Nov. 6, 2002) (award of BPO under FSS contract was improper where (i) not clear ordered items were covered by awardee's FSS contract; (ii) the agency unreasonably determined the awardee's proposal was technically acceptable; and (iii) the agency failed to conduct a required price realism evaluation.

LBM, Inc., B-290682 (Sep. 18, 2002) (transfer of acquisition of motor pool transportation services to task order under ID/IQ contract from set-aside for small businesses violates FAR 19.502-2(b))

REEP, Inc., B-290665 (Sep. 17, 2002) (issuance of delivery order to only vendor with qualifying products under one FSS schedule was improper where agency was aware of other available vendors with qualifying products under another FSS schedule)

Floro & Assocs., B-285451.3, .4 (Oct. 25, 2000) (task order exceeds scope of underlying contract)

T-L-C Systems, Inc., B-285687.2 (Sep. 27, 2000) (order beyond scope of FSS contract)

Delta International, Inc., B-284364.2 (May 4, 2000) (sustains protest against order under FSS contract because agency did not have reasonable basis to conclude protester's equipment did not meet its needs)

DRS Precision Echo. Inc., B-284080, .2 (Feb. 14, 2000) (FSS contract against which agency purported to place order had expired; agency's action was, in effect, an unjustified sole source award)

 

Sole Source; Competition Requirements; Bundling

Information Ventures, Inc., B-293541 (Apr. 9, 2004) (agency's response time for required capability statements in response to announcement of proposed sole source award was unreasonably short)

Information Ventures, Inc., B-293518 (Mar. 29, 2004) (synopsis of agency's proposed sole source award did not accurately describe agency's requirements)

SMF Systems Technology Corp., B-292419.3 (Nov. 26, 2003) (decision to cancel procurement and issue noncompetitive award lacked rational basis because initial procurement was not conducted contrary to applicable regulations and urgency allegedly justifying noncompetitive award was due to agency's missteps)

Rochester Optical Manufacturing Co., B-292247, .2 (Aug. 6, 2003) (agency's decision not to set aside procurement for small business was flawed because it did not conduct adequate market survey)

Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC; V1 Aviation, LLC; AAR Aircraft Services, B-292179, .2, .3 (June 27, 2003) (solicitation requirements for particular make and model of aircraft are unduly restrictive of competition)

HEROS, Inc., B-292043 (June 9, 2003) (solicitation calling for less than full and open competition results from lack of advance planning by the agency)

Intermark, Inc. B-290925 (Oct. 23, 2002) (agency improperly withdrew small-business set-aside completely rather than simply modifying it to include Randolph-Sheppard Act State Licensing Agency)

C. Lawrence construction Co., B-290709 (Sep. 20, 2002) (solicitation requiring named manufacturers' signs is defective where there is no evidence this is required to meet the agency's minimum needs)

TRS Research, B-290644 (Sep. 13, 2002) (agency failed to justify bundled requirement and failed to coordinate its intended procurement with SBA)

Vantex Service Corp., B-290415 (Aug. 8, 2002) (bundled solicitation was improper where agency has not shown bundling was required to meet its minimum needs)

Apex Support Services, Inc., B-288936, .2 (Dec. 12, 2001) (solicitation's performance bond has not been shown to be required to protect Government's interests and unduly restricts competition)

COBRO Corp., B-287578.2 (Oct. 15, 2001) (OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison was flawed where solicitation contained overly restrictive terms)

Signals & Systems, Inc., B-288107 (Sep. 21, 2001) (inadequate justification for noncompetitive procurement based on unusual and compelling urgency; lack of advance planning)

Sabreliner Corp., B-288030, .2 (Sep. 13, 2001) (inconsistent and inaccurate rationales for sole source award in J&A and during protest)

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration--Owego, B-287190.2, .3 (May 25, 2001) (protest against sole source award is sustained because agency did not give other interested vendor an accurate description of agency's needs)

Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company, Altama Delta Corporation and Wellco Enterprises, Inc., B-287237, .2, .3 (May 17, 2001) (agency should have considered whether partial small business set-asides were appropriate for parts of requirement even when total small business set-aside was not)

N&N Travel & Tours, Inc.; BCM Travel & Tours; Manassas Travel, Inc.; Alamo Travel, Inc.; Ravenel Bros., Inc.; and Bay Area Travel, Inc., B-285164.2, .3 (Aug. 31, 2000) (solicitation should have been total set-aside for small business)

One Source Mechanical Services, Inc; Kane Construction, B-293692, -293802 (June 1, 2004) (agency failed to follow FAR preference for making multiple awards for services)

Ocuto Blacktop & Paving Co., Inc., B-284165 (Mar. 1, 2000) (award made without regard to statutory preference for use of firms close to closing military bases to perform environmental remediation work)

 

Small Business; HUBZone Issues

Information Ventures, Inc., B-294267 (Oct. 8, 2004) (agency's decision not to set aside procurement for small businesses was based on inadequate and flawed market research)

SWR, Inc., B-294266 (Oct. 6, 2004) (agency decision not to set aside procurement for HUBZone small businesses was improper where based on inadequate market research)

Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-293134 (Feb. 6, 2004) (lack of documentation to support source selection decision; failure to apply HUBZone price evaluation preference)

Tiger Enterprises, Inc., B-292815.3, 293439 (Jan. 20, 2004) (agency should have terminated contract of awardee found to be other than small by the SBA in response to a timely size protest)

Rochester Optical Manufacturing Co., B-292247, .2 (Aug. 6, 2003) (agency's decision not to set aside procurement for small business was flawed because it did not conduct adequate market survey)

Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-291657 (Feb. 13, 2003) (small business offeror misrepresented (understated) extent of large business subcontractor's participation in light of limitation on subcontracting clause)

Burns and Roe Services Corp., B-291530 (Jan. 23, 2003) (agency failed to properly evaluate extent of small business participation as a percentage of total contract value)

Intermark, Inc. B-290925 (Oct. 23, 2002) (agency improperly withdrew small-business set-aside completely rather than simply modifying it to include Randolph-Sheppard Act State Licensing Agency)

LBM, Inc., B-290682 (Sep. 18, 2002) (transfer of acquisition of motor pool transportation services to task order under ID/IQ contract from set-aside for small businesses violates FAR 19.502-2(b))

TRS Research, B-290644 (Sep. 13, 2002) (agency failed to justify bundled requirement and failed to coordinate its intended procurement with SBA)

Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company, Altama Delta Corporation and Wellco Enterprises, Inc., B-287237, .2, .3 (May 17, 2001) (agency should have considered whether partial small business set-asides were appropriate for parts of requirement even when total small business set-aside was not)

AMI Construction, B-286351 (Dec. 27, 2000) (agency should have referred issue concerning firm's small business status to SBA instead of simply relying on info in SBA's PRO-Net database)

N&N Travel & Tours, Inc.; BCM Travel & Tours; Manassas Travel, Inc.; Alamo Travel, Inc.; Ravenel Bros., Inc.; and Bay Area Travel, Inc., B-285164.2, .3 (Aug. 31, 2000) (solicitation should have been total set-aside for small business)

 

Conflicts of Interest

PURVIS Systems, Inc., B-293807.3, .4 (Aug. 16, 2004) (agency failed to evaluate awardee's potential conflicts of interest)

Science Applications International Inc., B-293601, .2, .3 (May 3, 2004) (agency failed to evaluate potential organization conflicts of interest--OCI)

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-286714.2 (Feb. 13, 2001) (organizational conflict of interest)

Ktech Corp., B-285330, .2 (Aug. 17, 2000) (subcontractor had access to inside information from prior work that gave it unfair advantage in bidding; agency should have analyzed possible conflicts of interest in proposed role for subcontractor)

 

Award of Bid & Proposal and/or Protest Costs

Brechan Enterprises--Costs, B-294046.2 (Nov. 4, 2004) (recommends award of costs where agency unduly delayed in taking action in response to clearly meritorious protest, despite post-protest indicia protester might not have been small and thus not eligible for award set aside for small businesses)

e-LYNXX--Costs, B-292761.2 (Aug. 12, 2004) (GAO recommends reimbursement of costs of protester's General Counsel)

CAMS, Inc.-Costs, B-292546.2 (Mar. 22, 2004)

Sodexho Management, Inc.--Costs, B-289605.3 (Aug. 6, 2003)

SKJ & Assocs., Inc.--Costs, B-291533.3 (July 24, 2003)

AAR Aircraft Services--Costs, B-291670.6 (May 12, 2003)

Martin Electronics, Inc.--Costs, B-291732.2 (Apr. 22, 2003)

DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284860.4 (Aug. 23, 2002) 

PADCO, Inc.--Costs, B-289096.3 (May 3, 2002)

Alaska Mechanical, Inc.--Costs, B-289139.2 (Mar. 6, 2002)

Georgia Power Company; Savannah Electric and Power Company--Costs, B-289211.5, .6 (May 2, 2002)

National Opinion Research Center--Costs, B-289044.3 (Mar. 6, 2002)

Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corp.--Costs, B-286201.8 (Mar. 5, 2002)

Professional Landscape Management Services, Inc.--Costs, B-287728.2 (Nov. 2, 2001)  

Cox & Assocs. CPAs--Costs, B-286753.3 (June 19, 2001)

Louisiana Clearwater, Inc.--Costs, B-283081.4, .5 (Apr. 14, 2000) (agency's inadequate corrective action forced protester to incur additional costs to protest second time)

The Jones/Hill Joint Venture--Costs, B-286194.3 (Mar. 27, 2001)

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7, .8 (Mar. 14, 2001)

Minolta Corp.--Costs, B-285010.2 (Sep. 26, 2000)

York Building Services, Inc.; Olympus Building Services, Inc.--Costs, B-282887.10, .11 (Aug. 29, 2000)

Millar Elevator Service Co.--Costs, B-284870.3 (Aug. 3, 2000)

Pulau Electronics Corp.--Costs, B-280048.11 (July 31, 2000)

 

Corrective Action

Shindong-A Express Tour Co., Ltd.--Costs, B-292459.3 (Mar. 25, 2004) (undue delay by agency in taking corrective action)

Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corp., B-286201.6 (Aug. 30, 2001) (agency's corrective action in response to prior protest was inadequate where it did not correct original problems and where agency only reopened discussions with one offeror in competitive range)

DevTech Systems, Inc., B-284860.2 (Dec. 20, 2000) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions while taking corrective action)


This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me