In the case of Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (JS&A), GAO file B-411174, decision dated June 5, 2015 (http://www.gao.gov/products/B-411174), JS&A, a small business, protested the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) to not award it one of the multiple contracts for construction management services. JS&A asserted that it should have received one of the anticipated awards because the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued them a Certificate of Competency (COC). A COC is a written decision issued by the SBA to a contracting officer certifying that a small business concern is responsible for the purpose of receiving and performing a government contract. GAO denied the protest.
Based on a price evaluation where they considered only the offerors’ base year prices, the source selection authority determined that five offerors, including JS&A, offered the best value. The contracting officer, however, found that JS&A was not a responsible contractor after reviewing the firm’s financial resources, and referred the protester to the SBA for a COC review. The SBA concluded that JS&A was a responsible contractor and informed GSA that a COC had been issued to the protester.
Before an award decision was formally made, a new contracting officer and source selection authority were assigned to this procurement. After reviewing the evaluation, the new officials concluded that the evaluations and initial award decisions were flawed because they did not rely on total evaluated prices, as required by the solicitation, Instead, the decisions were based on an evaluation of only base year pricing. They also found another error regarding the evaluation of another offerors’ past performance.
After correcting these errors, the agency made new award decisions, concluding that five proposals merited award. JS&A was not one of the companies selected for award.
Per GAO, the RFP provided for award of contracts on a best-value basis. Based on the issuance of a COC to the protester, GSA could not deny the protester the award based on matters relating to its responsibility. However, the agency could select offerors other than JS&A, provided the basis for doing so was unrelated to the protester’s responsibility. The agency conducted a best-value tradeoff between JS&A and the three offerors who proposed higher prices than the protester. In each instance, the agency concluded that the three awardees’ proposals provided strengths under the non-price factors which merited award despite JS&A’s lower price. GAO concluded that the agency was not required to award the contract to JS&A based solely on the issuance of the COC.
In this situation a small business was in line for award and the CO asked for a COC which was granted. Before award, the CO and source selection official changed out. The new CO discovered some errors in the previous evaluation and when they were fixed, the small business that had been issued a COC was no longer in line for award – but not because of any responsibility issues.
It’s interesting to note that the SBA will not look at or issue a COC unless the contractor is in line for award. But in this case, after the COC was issued, the source selection team re-evaluated the firms’ standings due to errors found in the original evaluation.
So getting a COC does not always guarantee you will get the award.