• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • What is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • Why Should you file a bid protest?
    • When Must you file a bid protest?
    • Where can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of Ekagra Partners

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • September 30, 2019
  • Small Business Set-AsidesSubcontractor ExperienceTeaming Agreement
  • 0 Comments

Agency: General Services Administration
Disposition: Protest Sustained in Part and Denied in Part
Decided: February 15, 2019
Keywords:  Small Business Set-Asides, Mentor-Protégé Program
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
A solicitation’s limitation on a joint venture’s ability to submit a proposal as a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) that relies on the experience of subcontractors that are not members of the joint venture is unduly restrictive of competition.

Summary of Facts 

A small business set aside solicitation was issued September 10, 2018 for an award of new contracts in GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) small business pool of government-wide multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The RFP advised that awards would be made to the offerors “whose proposals are found to be the most highly rated under the non-cost/price factors and that offer a fair and reasonable cost/price.” The non-cost/price factors included relevant experience; past performance; and systems, certifications, and clearances. For offerors that submitted proposals as part of a mentor-protégé joint venture, the RFP stated that they may identify projects that were performed by the individual joint venture members, but limited the number of projects that may be identified as being performed by a large business mentor firm. Ekagra Partners filed a protest prior to the closing date of November 13.

The RFP also prohibited joint ventures, such as a mentor-protégé joint venture, from submitting proposals that rely on the experience of subcontractors (known as “hybrid” CTAs), but allowed small businesses to submit proposals as CTAs where the small business is a prime contractor and other firms act as subcontractors, and thereby rely on the experience of both the prime contractor and the subcontractors.  

The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) small business mentor-protégé program allows businesses to serve as mentors to small business protégé firms to provide “business development assistance” to protégé firms and “improve the protégé firms’ ability to successfully compete for federal contracts.” If SBA approves a mentor protégé joint venture, the joint venture is permitted to compete as a small business for “any government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the procurement.” 

Basis of Protest 

Ekagra protests the terms of the solicitation arguing (1) the RFP places unreasonable limits on the extent to which mentor-protégé joint venture offerors can rely on the experience of the large business mentor firm, and (2) the RFP improperly prohibits joint venture offerors from forming a CTA under which the offeror relies on the experience of subcontractors that are not part of the joint venture. 

Ekagra argued that the solicitation’s limitation on the number of projects that may be submitted by a large business mentor firm is unreasonable because it hinders otherwise qualified and capable small businesses from presenting their most competitive offers and that there is no reasonable basis for the agency to distinguish between the mentor and protégé members of a joint venture for purposes of evaluating experience since the joint venture itself would be considered small. GSA argued that the solicitation limited the amount of experience that can be credited to a large business mentor because allowing a mentor-protégé joint venture to rely primarily upon the qualifications of large business members’ experience gives the joint venture an unfair competitive advantage as compared to small businesses that are not part of joint ventures. GSA also argued that the limitation was necessary to ensure that the small business protégé is capable of performing the work. 

Ekagra next argued that the RFP unreasonably prohibited joint ventures from proposing as a CTA that uses additional subcontractors that are not members of the joint venture (hybrid CTAs), and thereby relying on their experience. Since SBA’s regulations treat an approved mentor-protégé joint venture as a small business offeror, Ekagra argued that such an offeror should be accorded the same ability as any other small business to form teaming arrangements with prospective subcontractors. GSA argued that the inclusion of the challenged term is reasonable because it avoids “significant administrative burdens” in assessing the documentation that offerors must submit.

Protest Denied in Part and Sustained in Part

The GAO disagreed that the RFP placed unreasonable limits on a mentor-protégé joint venture offeror’s ability to rely on the mentor’s experience. When a contractor challenges a solicitation requirement as unduly restrictive of competition, the agency must establish that the requirement is “reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs.” The GAO found that GSA set forth a rational basis for the challenged solicitation term, holding that the agency reasonably explained that limiting the amount of experience that may be credited to a large business mentor ensures that the agency will be able to meaningfully consider the experience of the protégé member of the joint venture.  The GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Regarding the portion of the protest dealing with CTAs and subcontractors, GAO agreed with Ekagra.

GAO determined that there was no basis to find the CTA limitation is reasonable, since GSA did not reasonably explain why allowing mentor-protégé joint ventures to compete as CTAs that include subcontractors poses significant administrative burdens that warrant inclusion of the term. The GAO sustained the protest on this basis.

Tagged

Mentor-Protégé ProgramSmall Business Set-Asides

Share

Related Posts

Joint Venture Past Performance, You, Me, We; Everybody Gets Evaluated.

February 28, 2023

Matter of: M.R. Pittman Group, LLC

May 27, 2021

Matter of DLF-CPC JV, LLC

September 4, 2020

Matter of Precise Management, LLC

March 23, 2020

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • What is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • Why Should you file a bid protest?
    • When Must you file a bid protest?
    • Where can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411