When evaluating key personnel qualifications, agencies generally assess the experience of the personnel proposed by the contractor against the requirements of the solicitation. Depending on the evaluation criteria, a proposal may be subject to downgraded ratings and even elimination if it fails to provide the necessary information demonstrating that the proposed key personnel possess the type and level of experience and qualifications required by the solicitation. Therefore, it is crucial that offerors include current, accurate, and responsive experience information in key personnel resumes and other relevant sections of their proposals. The evaluation of proposed key personnel qualifications is based on all information provided to the agency, sometimes including information not specifically stated in key personnel resumes. For instance, the government must consider any key personnel qualifications information received from the offeror during discussions. On the other hand, agencies are not required to consider information that an offeror fails to provide, even if evaluators have personal knowledge of the information through other sources. In this respect, the evaluation of key personnel qualifications differs from that of past performance information due to the inapplicability of the “too close at hand” principle, under which evaluators are required to consider certain past performance information personally known to them even if that information is not provided by the offeror in response to the solicitation.

Government typically has no obligation to assist the contractor in completing work before the contract completion date. Despite this lack of obligation, it is still not permissible for the government to hinder or otherwise prevent a contractor’s early completion of performance. In this regard, when the contractor’s early completion of work is delayed due to government actions, the government may be liable for the delay it causes even when the contractor completes performance within the agreed-upon contract completion deadline. Contractors must satisfy three elements to establish entitlement to benefits of a planned early completion which is adversely impacted by government-caused delays. First, from the outset of the contract, the contractor must establish its intent to complete performance on an accelerated schedule and ahead of the contractually mandated completion date. Notably, while it is necessary for the contractor to convey its intent to complete early performance, it need not inform the government of a specific early completion date. Second, the contractor must have the capability to perform early, and its intent must be supported by consistent actions and performance activities during the performance period. Third, the contractor must establish that had it not been for the government-caused delays, its actions in pursuing acceleration would have led to an early completion. Once the three elements are established, the government is liable for damages arising from its dilatory actions that prevent the contractor’s early performance.

An offeror bidding on a federal contract set-aside for small businesses may challenge another offeror’s representation that it is a small business concern. Such size protests are referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) area office where the challenged offeror is headquartered. The challenged concern must then establish that it is indeed a small business. Per SBA regulations, if the challenged concern fails to submit a completed SBA Form 355 regarding size determination information or otherwise does not adequately respond to requests for information or size protest allegations in a timely manner, it risks the SBA presuming that the disclosure of the requested information would demonstrate that the concern is other than small. In this regard, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) has developed a three-factor test to determine whether an adverse inference is appropriate. First, the information the SBA area office seeks must be relevant to an issue in the size determination. Second, there must be a level of connection between the entity being protested and the entity the SBA area office is seeking information from. Third, the request for information by the area office must be specific. If the challenged concern does not provide the requested information and these three factors are met, the SBA may infer that the disclosure of the information would show that the concern is other than small.