With little fanfare, the SBA has updated the template for agreements under the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASMPP). The new template adds a series of check box-style questions, mainly about potential affiliation between the mentor and protege. Be sure to check out the new template if you are working on a mentor-protégé agreement.
It’s early October, which means that the federal government’s end-of-fiscal-year contracting binge has drawn to an end. With the spate of contract awards, this time of year typically sees an increase in the number of bid protests being filed, or at least contemplated.
Your small business is interested in submitting a proposal that requires a Department of Defense Facilities Clearance (FCL). While you will not have the required FCL when proposals are due, you have applied for the FCL and all signs indicate you will have the FCL by the time contract performance begins. In this scenario, can the agency outright deny your proposal or would it have to refer your proposal to the SBA for a certificate of competency? Turns out, it all hinges on whether GAO views the FCL requirement as a matter of proposal acceptability or corporate responsibility.
In 2016, SBA established the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, or ASMPP, enabling mentors of any size to provide business development assistance to small protégé businesses to enhance the protégé’s ability to compete for federal contracts. Since then, the ASMPP has served as a powerful tool for many businesses and, as of August 1, there were 885 active mentor-protégé agreements.
Internal Government Cost Estimates (IGCEs) are frequently used to gauge the reasonableness of contractor prices during proposal evaluation. But can these internal estimates also impact other evaluation factors? GAO was recently asked to resolve this question in the context of past performance evaluations, and the answer was essentially “you sure can!”
When submitting bids, contractors should always double check their proposal submission methods, whether it be a designated portal, email, or any other method, and do so well before the deadline. GAO recently had the opportunity to examine proposal submission issues related to a US Navy procurement, and did not show sympathy for the contractor who experienced proposal submission issues right at the deadline.
GAO recently sustained protest to an agency’s FAR Part 13 procurement that relied exclusively on CPARS-generated assessment chart rating percentages to evaluate vendors’ past performance. The agency’s goal was to “maximize competition” by considering all past work, rather than just relevant work. While there is no FAR Part 13 regulatory prohibition on doing so, GAO found the CPARS charts incomplete and misleading and the evaluation inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.