Shutterstock_2026862240.jpg

Effects of the Government’s Omission of Mandatory FAR Provisions in Solicitations

*** REGULATORY UPDATE: On November 12, 2024, the General Services Administration, Department of Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued an interim rule, which went into effect the same day. The interim rule amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to clarify System of Award Management (SAM) pre-award registration requirements. The rule revises the solicitation provision at FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that while an offeror must be registered in SAM at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award, the offeror need not be registered in SAM at every moment in between those two points. Accordingly, parts of the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims decisions that levy a requirement for offerors to maintain a continuous, uninterrupted, SAM registration during the entirety of the pre-award process are no longer applicable.***

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires procuring agencies to include various mandatory provisions in solicitations to protect the government’s contractual and policy interests. For instance, the government must include the provision at FAR 52.204-7 “System for Award Management” in all solicitations unless specific exceptions apply. In recent bid protest decisions, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that when the government fails to include a mandatory provision in a solicitation, it may not then rely on that provision to exclude prospective offerors from competition. Additionally, there is no requirement that mandatory FAR provisions must be incorporated into a solicitation by operation of law when they have been omitted. Consequently, the effects of such exclusion on the government’s award decision may be somewhat unpredictable. Notably, despite the general rule that government contracts be interpreted in accordance with the included terms, conditions, and clauses, and unless a deviation has been obtained – certain mandatory clauses (e.g. termination for convenience clause) are read into federal contracts whether or not expressly included in the contract under the Christian Doctrine.

In B-422389.2, a decision issued on August 21, 2024, the GAO sustained a post-award bid protest finding that the procuring agency unreasonably excluded the protestor from a task order award citing a temporary lapse in the protestor’s System for Award Management (SAM) registration because the solicitation did not include the mandatory provision at FAR 52.204-7. The provision provides in pertinent part that “an offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.”

The solicitation underlying the protest in B-422389.2, was issued by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for the acquisition of on-site medical staffing services for residents and detainees at five ICE facilities in Texas. The post-award protest challenged the issuance of the FAR § 16.505 task order exceeding $10 M, competed between holders of ICE’s Health Service Corps Medical Staffing Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Importantly, the task order’s fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) did not include the mandatory provision at FAR 52.204-7, which was included in the original IDIQ solicitation, but not incorporated in the eventual IDIQ contract. The FOPR stated that all IDIQ terms, conditions, and attachments were in full force and effect, as applicable.

The protestor was initially awarded the task order but that award was rescinded in response to an earlier protest. In taking corrective action and terminating the protestor’s award for the government’s convenience, the agency had concluded that the protestor was ineligible for award as its SAM registration had lapsed during the evaluation period and remained inactive at the time proposals were submitted. Subsequent to that determination, ICE conducted a new source selection based on a best-value tradeoff in accordance with the factors outlined in the FOPR by excluding the protestor. Once ICE issued the task order to another holder of the IDIQ contract, the protestor challenged ICE’s decision to exclude its proposal from the competition as unreasonable, contrary to the FOPR, and the relevant FAR requirements concerning SAM registration. Specifically, the protestor argued that since the FOPR did not include FAR clause 52.204-7, and did not otherwise notify potential offerors that an active SAM registration was a prerequisite for award, the protestor’s removal from the competition due to a lapse in its SAM registration during the evaluation period, constituted an unreasonable application of unstated eligibility criteria contrary to the stated terms of the FOPR. Additionally, the protestor argued that since the governing IDIQ contract included the FAR clause 52.204-13 (but not FAR 52.204-7 – which was only included in the IDIQ solicitation), the temporary lapse in its SAM registration was a matter of contract administration concerning noncompliance with the IDIQ’s contractual obligations.

In sustaining the protest, the GAO initially noted that while the solicitation for the governing IDIQ included the provision at FAR 52.204-7, the protestor’s IDIQ contract did not. Additionally, the FOPR also did not contain the FAR provision 52.204-7. Therefore, ICE was not justified to exclude the protestor from the competition for the FOPR based on FAR 52.204-7. The GAO noted that the government failed to provide support for its position that FAR 52.204-7 should be read into the FOPR even though the government failed to expressly include the provision in the FOPR’s solicitation. The GAO cited its relatively recent decision in VivSoft Techs., LLC, B-421561.15, B-421561.17, Apr. 11, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 94 at 8 n.12, in reminding the agency that there is no requirement that mandatory provisions must be incorporated into solicitation by operation of law when they have been omitted.

Furthermore, the GAO clarified that even though the protestor’s IDIQ contract included the clause at FAR 52.204-13, nothing in the contract notified the protestor that it would be ineligible to compete for task orders if its SAM registration were to lapse during the term of the IDIQ. Therefore, even though the FOPR stated that all terms and conditions of the IDIQ remained in full effect, nothing in the FOPR or its governing IDIQ, put the protestor on notice that it would be ineligible for award if its SAM registration lapsed during the evaluation period or at the time of submission of a task order proposal. Consequently, the GAO sustained the protest and recommended that ICE again terminate the most recent task order award for its convenience and this time include the protestor’s proposal in the competition before making a new award decision.

Offerors should be mindful that the mandatory nature of a FAR provision does not automatically result in its incorporation into a solicitation when the government has failed to expressly include it. Therefore, prospective contractors should generally request clarification regarding the government’s exclusion of any mandatory FAR provisions in the solicitation before proposals are due. As was demonstrated in this case, while the terms of an IDIQ contract maybe incorporated into a task order solicitation, the same may not always be true for all FAR provisions in the original IDIQ solicitation. Ultimately, the effects of the omission of a mandatory FAR provision in a solicitation may vary in accordance with the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular procurement.

This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

Shutterstock_732163345.jpg

Government contractors often rely on joint venture (JV) arrangements to meet the requirements of a solicitation. One such arrangement is the "de facto joint venture," where no formal agreement is reached, but the offering entity relies upon the experience of a related U.S. firm that guarantees the offering entity's performance. De facto joint ventures are commonly used in the context of procurements conducted under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act (Security Act) of 1986, which sets forth the requirements for companies seeking to compete for the construction of U.S. diplomatic facilities. Notably, where adequate competition exists for contracts involving diplomatic construction or design, the Security Act requires that only U.S. persons and “qualified joint venture persons” may submit a bid. Additionally, in its Security Act implementing regulations, the DOS permits offerors to rely on de facto JVs to meet the requirements of the Security Act. Therefore, depending on the terms of the solicitation, the de facto JV may provide potential contractors an additional avenue to demonstrate responsibility or meet past performance requirements by leveraging the resources and experience of related U.S. entities. However, since the de facto JV is not a separately registered entity, issues may arise when the de facto JV must meet specific qualification requirements, such as having an active registration in the System of Award Management (SAM).

more
TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-68.jpg

When evaluating quotations or proposals, government agencies must rely solely on the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. That is, once the procuring agency informs prospective contractors of the criteria against which it will evaluate the proposals, the agency must adhere to the stated criteria. Furthermore, once the evaluation criteria are established, agencies are prohibited from giving importance to specific factors, subfactors, or other criteria beyond which prospective offerors would reasonably expect. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 11.104, when conducting brand name or equal procurements, the procuring agency’s purchase description must include a general description of those “salient” physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the brand name item that an “equal” item must meet to be acceptable to receive an award. The FAR further instructs agencies to use brand name or equal descriptions when the salient characteristics are firm requirements. Therefore, quotations proposing “equal” items must be evaluated to ensure the offered items meet the stated salient characteristics of the brand name item. Consequently, the government’s evaluation of quotations may be protested for being improperly based on unstated evaluation criteria when the government fails to convey all the characteristics of the brand name item it considers “salient.”

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-73.jpg

When reviewing an agency’s procurement actions, adjudicative forums such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) typically consider various materials and information in the record. Such materials may include arguments the agency and contractor raised during litigation, explanations of decisions and events advanced during the procurement cycle, and any hearing testimony. When reviewing evidence to determine the reasonableness of the government’s procurement actions, the adjudicative forum will generally assign greater weight to contemporaneous materials than post hoc arguments or analyses. This is because the judgments made in the heat of an adversarial process do not always represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency. Therefore, while adjudicative forums will consider explanations provided by agency counsel that merely fill in previously unrecorded details, post hoc rationalizations are typically deemed less persuasive. For instance, in resolving bid protests, the GAO has explained that it accords greater weight to contemporaneous materials, which are far more indicative of whether the agency conducted a rational evaluation and source selection process.

In B-422162; B-422162.2; B-422162.3, a bid protest decision issued on February 1, 2024, the GAO applied this principle in sustaining the protestor’s challenge to the government’s cost realism evaluation. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) awarded the contract at issue for environmental remediation services at the Durham Manufacturing Company superfund site in Connecticut. The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract was awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis where the non-price factors, when combined, were approximately equal to cost. Notably, the solicitation provided that the government would evaluate proposed costs for realism and, if needed, adjust an offeror’s unrealistically low proposed costs to a most probable cost (MPC) calculated solely for evaluation purposes. Among other contentions, the protestor alleged that USACE made unreasonable upward adjustments to the proposed rates for two labor positions. Specifically, USACE evaluators found the protestors’ rates for the quality control (QC) manager and site safety and health officer (SSHO) position to be unrealistically low when compared to the independent government estimate (IGE). However, instead of upwardly adjusting the protestor’s QC manager and SSHO rates to the IGE rates for these positions, the evaluators adjusted these rates to the protestor’s proposed rate for the superintendent position. The evaluators also failed to contemporaneously record their rationale for this adjustment.

more
Shutterstock_267632282.jpg

Bid protest adjudicative forums such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have consistently held that a proposal that fails to meet a material solicitation requirement is considered technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis of an award. When included in the solicitation as mandatory, a prospective contractor’s adherence to the government’s small business participation requirements may be considered a material solicitation requirement. In such solicitations, an adequate response to a mandatory small business participation requirement not only addresses the requirement in the relevant proposal section but is also consistent across all sections of the offeror’s proposal, including its pricing. When an offeror fails to adequately respond to a solicitation’s mandatory small business participation requirement, its proposal contains a material defect. Such a proposal defect is typically only correctable when the government opens discussions, permitting offerors to submit revised proposals. Thus, if the procuring agency fails to open discussions to resolve the material proposal defect, it may not then properly award the contract to an offeror that failed to meet the solicitation’s mandatory requirements.

more

Effects of the Government’s Omission of Mandatory FAR Provisions in Solicitations

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights