Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

GovCon Blog: Learning from Bid Protests: Responsibility vs. Acceptability

Publications

November 5, 2014

In government contracting, offerors are regularly evaluated in their proposed approaches to meet solicitation requirements. Occasionally, an offeror's proposed solution is immaterial, as the offeror's overall ability to perform the work required by a solicitation is called into question.

Whether it is inadequate financial resources, an inability to meet delivery schedules or an inability to obtain a security clearance, some offerors fail to meet general criteria of responsibility required to perform. Generally, the procuring agency can eliminate an offeror based on a determination of nonresponsibility. However, small businesses are provided a little cover.

Before a federal procuring agency can eliminate a small business offeror based on general criteria of responsibility, the agency is required to first refer the matter to the SBA. The SBA has the sole authority to measure a small business' ability to perform a contract. In such cases where a small business' ability to perform is at issue, the SBA can issue a Certificate of Competency, which effectively serves as an SBA seal of approval for the contractor on that specific contract.

However, there is a difference between responsibility and acceptability—whether a contractor is able to perform the work vs. whether the contractor actually proposed to perform the work sought by the agency. There is no requirement for procuring agencies to refer matters to the SBA when a contractor submits an unacceptable proposal, i.e., where it did not propose to actually meet the solicitation requirements.

This difference in responsibility and acceptability was demonstrated in a recent GAO decision, MT & Associates, LLC. This protest involved the award of a small business set-aside contract for sign language interpreting services. The solicitation required offerors to propose interpreters with Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearances. The protester, MT & Associates, failed to include information regarding the security clearances of its proposed interpreters. As a result, the agency determined MT & Associates to be ineligible for award and eliminated it from the competition.

MT & Associates argued that the ability to obtain a security clearance is a matter of responsibility, and thus the agency was required to refer the matter to the SBA under the Certificate of Competency procedures prior to eliminating its proposal. The agency countered by arguing that this was not an issue of responsibility, but rather the acceptability of MT & Associates' proposal. GAO agreed with the agency and denied the protest.

GAO found that proposing interpreters with the requisite security clearances was a material term in the solicitation. The issue wasn't whether MT & Associates could meet the requirement, but whether it proposed to meet the requirement. Because MT & Associates' proposal failed to propose interpreters with the TS/SCI security clearances, there was a legitimate question as to MT & Associates' commitment to complying with the requirement. Thus, GAO determined that the agency properly determined MT & Associates' proposal to be unacceptable.

This decision provides a couple of takeaways, one on acceptability and another on responsibility. First, offerors (of all sizes) should carefully review the terms of a solicitation and ensure that proposals adequately respond to each material term and condition. As in MT & Associates, failure to do so can result in rejection of a proposal for being unacceptable.

Finally, if an agency eliminates a small business offeror from consideration for award on the basis of a nonresponsibility determination, the small business should ensure that the issue is properly referred to the SBA. The Certificate of Competency program is but one of the various programs available to assist small businesses in the federal procurement marketplace, and "responsible" contractors would be wise to take advantage.

For more Government Contracts information, visit www.BassBerryGovCon.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.