• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Competing against the incumbent contractor: What to do – and not do – Published on November 9, 2012

  • Home
  • Washington Business Journal Battle Lines
  • Competing against the incumbent contractor: What to do – and not do – Published on November 9, 2012

Competing against the incumbent contractor: What to do – and not do

Washington Business Journal by Lee Dougherty, Attorney, General Counsel PC

Date: Friday, November 9, 2012, 11:40am EST – Last Modified: Friday, November 30, 2012, 2:04pm EST

 

 

Competing against a company that has a long history with an agency can be tough, but the challenger can succeed if it offers an innovative proposal that is better and cheaper.

Protesting contractor: CISGi, Rockville

Contracting agency: National Science Foundation

Issue: Whether an agency’s rejection of a proposal by a company competing against a longtime contract holder was unreasonable

Decision: Denied by the Government Accountability Office, Nov. 6, 2012

Postmortem: Most of my clients have heard my advice on how to make money as a government contractor: Do something no one else does or do what others do but do it better and cheaper. If more government contractors would apply that simple guide they would be much more successful in identifying the contracts to pursue and in winning those contracts.

For contractors that rely on doing something no one else does, eventually some enterprising company will compete with them, in which case they need to show they can do the job better and cheaper than the competition nipping at their heals.

World Technology Evaluation Center Inc. of Baltimore was awarded a time-and-materials contract to provide support services for the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). WTEC had been supporting the National Science Foundation for “an extended period,” including “more recently being the interim sole-source contractor.” CISGi was the only other contractor that submitted a proposal.

Knowing that the incumbent has been in place for a lengthy period and was subsequently given a sole-source award should raise many red flags for a contractor that wants to compete for the work. However, there are a host of potential protest issues when an incumbent is that entrenched in an agency.

CISGi raised many of those issues during the course of its protest, including allegations of favoritism and an impermissible conflict of interest. Unfortunately for CISGi, it did not raise those issues until long after they would have been considered timely protests by the GAO, and as a result the allegations were dismissed.

CISGi did raise several arguments that were considered by the GAO. The company said it should have been rated higher under the technical factor. But the agency found that CISGi’s proposal “failed to sufficiently explain how its management plan directly applied to the work of the NNCO.”

The GAO also stated “we have no basis to find the agency’s findings to be in conflict, or otherwise unreasonable.”

In another argument, CISGi contended that the weaknesses found in its software system were unreasonable. The GAO responded that there was “no basis to find the agency’s evaluation unreasonable.”

Lastly, CISGi argued that the determination that its proposed project manager lacked experience “managing tasks as large and as complex as those required” by the request for proposals was unreasonable. The GAO found “CISGi’s contention is without basis” and again said “we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation in this regard.”

CISGi could have avoided a substantial expenditure of time and money if it had heeded my guidance on making money as a government contractor.

The company tried, unsuccessfully, to compete with an incumbent that was deeply embedded in an agency. Contractors do it successfully every day, but they do it by presenting the agency with a proposal that absolutely cannot be rejected. They do it by offering a solution that is innovative, and they usually couple that with a lower cost to the government.

CISGi’s protest was a virtual act of futility based on its failure to adequately compete with the incumbent. Remember, do something no one else does, or do it better and cheaper, and you will be successful as a government contractor.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Download our Bid Protest Primer FREE eBook!

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • 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
  • 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
  • Fair Market Price
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • 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
  • 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 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-Qualification of Offerors
  • Preaward/Postaward Requirements
  • 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
  • Proposals
  • Protest Jurisdiction
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • 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
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Uncategorized
  • 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


Visit Our
blog

Read more

Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-202-770-2939
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

Lists*

© 2018 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-202-770-2939