- GAO Protest Intervention. Protestor challenged agency’s technical proposal and pricing of the awardee. GAO denied the protest. 2015.
- GAO Bid Protest, alleging that agency improperly evaluation offeror’s technical proposal and did not comply with the solicitation criteria. Agency took corrective action.
- GAO Protest Intervention. Protestor alleged that the government failed to follow local state law for foreign companies working in the state. GAO denied the protest.
- Bid protest alleging that Agency failed to follow evaluation criteria after corrective action and failed to conduct discussions. Agency took corrective action.2014
- GAO Bid Protest showing that the Agency failed to evaluate properly past performance and technical proposal. Agency took corrective action. 2014
- GAO Bid Protestshowing that the Agency failed to evaluate properly past performance and technical proposal. Agency took corrective action. 2014
- GAO Bid Protestshowing that Agency improperly applied past performance of affiliate company who was the incumbent and not offeror. Agency took corrective action. 2014
- GAO Bid Protest alleging failure to allow former member of the competitive range to take advantage of material changes to the solicitation. Agency immediately took corrective action. 2014
- GAO Bid Protest alleging agency failure to consider offerors technical approach when using government estimates. After hearing, Agency took corrective action.
- GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency improperly considered awardee’s subcontractor and technical proposal. Agency took immediate action. 2013
- GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency improperly evaluated contract past performance and pricing evaluation did not follow the terms of the solicitation. Agency took immediate corrective action. 2013
- GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency failed to consider awardee’s subcontractor’s past performance. Corrective action was taken. 2013
- GAO Bid Protest alleging improper technical evaluation, improper trade-off analysis, and constitutional violations. The agency immediately moved to take corrective action without further litigation.
- GAO Bid Protest alleging agency improperly excluded a contractor from competitive range. Agency took corrective action. 2012
- GAO protest alleging abuse of discretion from the Contracting Officer, improper withdrawal from the competitive range and improper past performance determinations. Agency decided to take corrective action. 2012
- GAO Protest alleging agency violated Service Contract Act because it made a significant change to the solicitation requirements after the competitive range was formed. However, after the significant change, the VA never allowed the original bidders to participate. After filing to GAO, the agency agreed and re-advertised the newly changed requirement.
- GAO Bid Protest: VA published full and open solicitation, established a competitive range, then substantially amended and reduced the requirements without providing original bidders a chance to rebid. Agency agreed to correct the problem by letting the original bidders amend proposals.2012
- Agency Bid Protest where the awardee violated the Buy American Act. Awardee did not meet the US manufacturing requirement. The protest was sustained. 2011
SBA Size Protests, and Appeals to SBA Office of Hearing and Appeals
Size Appeal of EnviroServices & Training Center, LLC., SBA No. SIZ-5517 (2013). Law Firm represented awardee, Alpha Technical Services, and defended against the appeal. Appellant argued that its emails to the Contracting Officer constituted a valid SBA Size Protest. SBA OHA disagreed and also ruled that the appellant did not make a showing that the size determination was clearly erroneous.
Size Appeal of Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc.,SBA No. SIZ-5372 (2012) (vacates Area Office decision; Area Office improperly analyzed 5 year-old violation of “3-in-2” rule not raised in size protest and without giving notice of its concern to the protested firm; violation of “3-in-2” rule (particularly by 8(a) BD mentor and protege when the joint venture in question is not even involved in the instant procurement) does not automatically mean general affiliation exists, but might necessitate further inquiry).
Size Appeal of Accent Service Co., SBA No. SIZ-5237 (2011) (Master Subcontracting Agreement did not establish joint venture and did not establish that one firm was ostensible subcontractor of the other; the fact that contested firm often awarded subcontracts to another firm did not establish economic dependence, if anything it made the other firm dependent on contested firm).
Size Appeal of Argus and Black, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5204 (2011) (overturns Area Office’s finding of affiliation through economic dependence because it was based only on one, small contract and did not satisfy the conditions for such a finding).
Appeal of SBA decision to SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. SBA adversely decided that small business violated the Ostensible subcontractor Rule and was therefore affiliated with its subcontractor. The main issue in the SBA size protest was whether the subcontractor was in control of the project. SBA OHA reversed SBA’s ruling. 2010.
Board of Contract Appeals
Appeal of agency claims denial. Agency denied client’s claim for work performed overseas. ASBCA sustained the appeal. Court granted damages of over $750,000. (2013)
Appeal of contractor claim with agency. Contractor was terminated from contract which was then awarded to another contractor. Appeal to ASBCA. Case settled. (2012).
Appeal of termination for default to ASBCA. Contractor was terminated due actions to which the agency was aware. Estoppel and Waiver were at issue. Contractor and agency settled the matter. (2012).
Department of the Army failed to pay invoices to small business for products shipped to agency. Agency claimed non-compliance with contract. Agency reversed itself after supplying of documents proving a different result. 2012.
8a Request for Reconsideration approved after guiding client to provide SBA with relevant support and evidence to overcome economic disadvantage requirement. (2012)
8a Request for Reconsideration approved supplementing initial application with more defined narratives and supporting evidence to overcome both social and economic disadvantage requirements. (2011)
SBA denial of 8(a) application was approved on reconsideration. The SBA initially denied the 8(a) application due to information for which the SBA concluded that they were not convinced by the preponderance of the evidence to allow the company into the 8(a) Program. After revising the initial application and supplying corroborative evidence, the SBA approved the application. (2009)
Suspension and Debarment
- 2020. Successfully represented employee recommended for debarment. Successfully convinced SDO against debarment.
- December 2019. The IG alleged client to have mischarged for over $450,000.00 over 4 years. The agency proposed client for debarment for 3 years. Watson’s attorneys with the Suspension and Debarment Official and after the firm’s presentation and submissions the Suspension and Debarment Official agreed to to terminate the proposed debarment action.
- January 2019 to December 2019. Represented contractors and individuals in various cases involving mischarging time, counterfeit parts, poor performance, adverse IG investigations, false statements, wrong charge codes, bribery, serious violations of consumer protections, failure to pay debts, conflicts of interest, refurbished parts, affiliate matters, charging for non-work activities, overbilling and labor mischarging.
- Convinced Department of the Army to withdraw proposed debarment based upon Watson’s response on behalf of client. (October 2016)
- Represented small business that was targeted for suspension and debarment. Negotiated a complete reversal based upon the alleged facts. (2013).
- Represented large business with allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Achieved successful plan from the Board to allow contractor to restructure its operations. (2014)
Agency claim against contractor for overpayment of $987,000. After review of contract and agency records, agency reduced claim against contractor to $0. (2010)
Small Business Subcontracting Plan statute was violated by prime contractor. After initial award, the prime contractor did not follow is legal requirement to comply with small business subcontracting plan goals. Watson & Associates took a legislative approach to Congress which included the SBA and agency. Parties came to an amicable resolution. (2009)
Termination for convenience: Settled contractor termination for convenience claims with agency due to support of irritable evidence of contractors cost. (2011)
Business partnership dispute between partners. One partner ousted the other and refused to return the initial investment. Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages. 2008.
Call Watson & Associates, LLC to assist you with all government contract disputes. Call Our Washington, DC office at 202-827-9750 or Corporate Office Toll-Free 1-866-601-5518