Issue 19-12 (November 2019) of “Briefing Papers” has published my article entitled “Professional Employee Compensation Under FAR 52.222-46." Published monthly by Thomson Reuters, “Briefing Papers” provides advice and guidelines on topics about contracting with the Federal Government.
By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://farlawyers.com/
The Department of Defense (DOD) has issued a final rule to prohibit the use of lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) source-selection procedures unless the circumstances satisfy eight criteria. The procedures direct contracting officers to avoid LPTA procedures for certain knowledge-based professional services.
A common occurrence in Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid-protest practice is for the procuring agency to announce it will take corrective action in response to a complaint against the award and the agency requests that GAO dismiss the protest as academic. The question that often arises in a followup protest after the dismissal is whether the agency’s corrective agency was a meaningful response in light of the protester’s earlier allegations of prejudicial error. When an agency fails to implement the promised corrective action, the agency’s action can be protested when it precludes the timely, economical resolution of the initial protest. The GAO considered such a followup protest in DirectViz Solutions, LLC, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-417565.3, 2019 CPD ¶ 372.
Protesters will not be excused from abiding by the bid protest regulations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) because of their inexperience with protests or their lack of understanding of the GAO protest procedures. Thus, the GAO’s bid protest regulations contain some pitfalls for protesters unfamiliar with the rules on responding to the agency report.
In BNL, Inc., B-409450, B-409450.3, 2014 CPD ¶ 138, 2014 WL 1818046, the protester in a procurement for management, acquisition, and financial support to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) argued that the agency improperly evaluated the proposal of Strategy and Management Services, Inc. (SAMS), one of three awardees.