• GAO Protests  
  • Contract Claims  
  • Fraud and Criminal Investigations  
  • Whistleblower (Qui Tam) Actions under the False Claims Act  
  • Terminations for Default  
  • Terminations for Convenience  
  • Government Delay Claims  
  • Cost Overruns  

When an RFQ (Request for Quotation) is issued and competition is limited to only those contractors holding FSS (Federal Supply Schedule) Contracts, an award cannot be made for items not listed on the FSS Schedule.

In this protest, the agency's task order exceeded the scope of the underlying indefinite quantity contract, leading the GAO to sustain the protest.

The GAO sustained a protest filed by two unsuccessful offerors that the agency did not conduct a proper price realism analysis.

In this procurement, the Request for Proposals (RFP) sought fixed-price proposals for computer support services for agency locations both in the U.S. and around the world.  The procurement was valued at $500 million. As part of the RFP, proposals were to be subject to a price realism analysis.

The GAO denied the protest when the protester challenged the agency's cancellation of the solicitation.  In a negotiated procurement, a contracting agency has broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel a solicitation, and the agency need only establish a reasonable basis for doing so.  A reasonable basis to cancel exists when, for example, an agency determines that a solicitation does not accurately reflect its needs.  Here, the agency has set forth a facially reasonable basis for cancellation -- i.e., that its technical needs have changed, increasing beyond what the contract award would have provided, and that the statement of work no longer reflects the government's needs.

The GAO found that a number of agency evaluation assessments were not supported by the record and indicated unequal treatment of offerors.

In this procurement, the agency conducted a competition among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractors to establish a single blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for an automated Freedom of Information Act system.  Following an award to another competitor, the protester alleged unequal treatment in a number of evaluation conclusions.

The GAO upheld a protest that the awardee had organizational conflicts of interest and, therefore, should not have received the contract.

The GAO sustained a protest and ruled in favor of the protester when the agency failed to adequately document it's evaluation decision.

In this protest, the protester challenged the award to its higher priced competitor.  The agency argued that the GAO did not have jurisdiction to review the protest because the procurement involved a task order.  The GAO found that it did have jurisdiction, and it ruled in favor of the protestor on the merits.

In many instances, Congress has denied the GAO protest jurisdiction over the award of task orders.  However, a couple exceptions have developed whereby the GAO will accept jurisdiction over a task order award. 

The GAO found that the agency properly rejected an offeror when the offeror would have had a conflict of interest in performing the contract.

In this case, the agency was seeking proposals from qualified independent contractors to review initial medicare payment determinations by MAC contractors.  MAC stands for Medicate Administrative Contractor.  The problem for the protester was that it was also the MAC contractor for a third of the region, meaning that it could be reviewing its own initial determinations.