The government often adds products and services to its existing contracts by executing contract modifications and amending the relevant terms. Under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, a vendor’s schedule contract may be modified to add product or service offerings and revise its price list. Such modifications are generally considered matters of contract administration and therefore may not be challenged in a bid protest. However, an exception to this general rule may arise under the Competition in Contracting Act’s (CICA) full and open competition requirements, which remain applicable notwithstanding the FSS program’s streamlined acquisition procedures. Under this exception, a protester’s allegations that a contract modification changes the work beyond the scope of the original contract place the protest within the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) bid protest jurisdiction. This is because the additional work covered by the modification is otherwise subject to CICA’s competition requirements, unless a valid determination is obtained that deems the work appropriate for procurement on a sole-source basis. However, as with any protest, the protester must satisfy the requirement of being an interested party. Notably, prospective suppliers or subcontractors who supply competing products or services to FSS vendors may not raise such protests, as their economic interests are not considered sufficiently direct to confer interested party status.

The government may provide performance workload estimates during the solicitation phase to assist offerors in preparing their bids or proposals. If due care is not exercised in preparing these estimates and the contractor relies on them, the government may be liable for breach of contract. Due care requires the government to base its estimates on all relevant information reasonably available at the time. If the government fails to base its estimate on the latest available data or is otherwise negligent in preparing it, the contractor may recover any resulting damages. To prevail in such a claim, the contractor must show that it is more likely true than not true that the government’s estimate, on which it relied to prepare its offer, was inadequately or negligently prepared. In a typical case, the contractor must prove that the government’s negligent estimate misled it into submitting an unfairly low bid. The contractor may also need to demonstrate that the government had exclusive control over the information used in developing the estimate, which was unavailable to the contractor from other sources.

In Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, 847 F.3d 1345 (2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the government was in breach of contract because it negligently estimated its requirements and the contractor relied on the government’s estimates. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) awarded the underlying contract for the disposal of surplus military property at Defense Reutilization and Marketing Offices (DRMOs) upon the military’s departure from an area of operations. While the DLA usually handled the requirement internally, it became aware of planned troop movements, which were expected to cause a surge in workload that it was not equipped to handle without contracting out the requirement. During the solicitation phase, DLA issued several amendments relating to anticipated workload and costs. Under one such amendment, DLA provided offerors with a website that showed historical workload, including the number of military property items received for processing and the amount of scrap processed for each DRMO. In a later amendment, the DLA provided offerors with a workload chart that projected a stable workload for the first two years of the contract, followed by a progressive decline of 75%, 50%, and 30% in the option years three to five, respectively. The government also provided the contractor a workload baseline for each DRMO which utilized the same historical data.

The bid protest regulations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) contain timeliness requirements that demand strict adherence by protesters. In cases where a protester first files an agency-level protest, any subsequent protest at the GAO must be filed within 10 calendar days of actual or constructive knowledge of the initial adverse agency action. In this regard, an adverse agency action refers to any action or inaction by the procuring agency that is prejudicial to the position taken by the protester in its agency-level protest. Notably, such an adverse action includes the opening of bids or the receipt of proposals. Therefore, when protesters file agency-level protests challenging the terms of a solicitation, and the agency does not take any corrective action or extend the date of proposal receipt, the passing of the date of proposal receipt is considered adverse to the protester and starts the 10-day clock for filing a GAO protest. In such cases, if the protester waits for the agency’s decision on the agency-level protest to file its GAO protest and more than 10 calendar days pass after the date of receipt of proposals, the protest is considered untimely under GAO rules.

Solicitations for federal contracts performed in foreign countries may include definitive responsibility criteria mandating compliance with the laws and requirements of the host nation. Such criteria are considered objective standards, included in the solicitation to evaluate the offerors’ ability to perform the contract. Procuring agencies may restrict competition using such requirements if the definitive responsibility criteria are reasonably necessary to meet the government’s minimum needs. If an offeror fails to meet specifically included responsibility criteria mandating compliance with foreign laws, it is deemed non-responsible and considered ineligible for an award. Of course, offerors may challenge solicitation terms requiring compliance with foreign laws as unduly restrictive of competition. In such cases, the procuring agency must establish that the solicitation terms containing the responsibility criteria are reasonably necessary to meet its minimum needs. While the agency’s explanation must withstand logical scrutiny to be considered adequate, an offeror’s disagreement with the explanation alone does not demonstrate that the agency’s reasoning is unreasonable. Ultimately, when solicitations for contracts involving performance in foreign countries incorporate definitive responsibility criteria based on foreign laws, prospective offerors must either comply with the terms of the solicitation or demonstrate that the relevant requirements are clearly unreasonable.