The GAO ruled that is it was not improper and was not prohibited from conducting an online reverse auction under simplified acquisition procedures where vendor prices were revealed allowing other bidders to offer lower prices (MTB Group, B-295463). Cascading set-asides have come under considerable criticism lately where agencies set a procurement aside for one or more categories of small businesses (e.g. disadvantaged, HUBZone, women-owned) only after soliciting and receiving proposals from all categories of businesses making companies go through the expense of preparing proposals that may not even be considered if the company does not fit one of the categories of companies being considered. The Court did not rule on the legality of cascading set-asides noting however, the process has developed without the discipline of regulatory guidance (Greenleaf Construction v. US, 67 Fed. Cl. 350).

Though a competition is not required for award of task or delivery orders under Federal Supply Schedule contracts, if such a competition is held the GAO will review protests to ensure it is fair, reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The GAO sustained a protest where the GSA issued a purchase order to a vendor whose quotation included non-FSS items stating that an exemption from full and open competition for FSS contracts applies only if all goods and services included in the task or delivery order are included and priced on the schedule contract (KEI Pearson, B-294226). The Court also held that a mini-competition for a task and delivery order under a FSS contract does not give rise to required debriefing requirements stipulated in FAR 15 because FAR Part 8.4, which controlled the acquisition, does not include debriefing requirements and the responses to the RFQ were not "competitive proposals" for which the statute requires debriefings (Systems Plus v. US, 68 Fed. Cl. 206).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}