top of page
  • Writer's pictureR.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Incomplete Proposal Is Not a Matter of Responsibility

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recently considered a protest by a small business that its failure to submit required information in its proposal was essentially a non-responsibility determination that should have been referred to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) for possible issuance of a Certificate of Competency (“COC”). Los Alamos Tech. Assoc., Inc., B-421034, Nov. 30, 2022.


The issue concerned a solicitation that was a total small business set-aside by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) for environmental support services at the Johnson Space Center in New Mexico. The solicitation required offerors to submit five volumes in its technical proposal, and further stated that a proposal would be unacceptable and would not be evaluated when “it contains major deficiencies or omissions.” NASA’s initial review of Los Alamos’ proposal deemed it noncompliant with the solicitation because it failed to submit volume 5, the required “model contract.” The proposal of Los Alamos was eliminated and excluded from further evaluation.


Los Alamos did not dispute that it failed to submit the required model contract with its proposal, but argued that the model contract had no impact on the technical evaluation, and was merely an administrative “check-the-box exercise.” Los Alamos further argued that its proposal was rejected solely due to its failure to submit responsibility information, and was essentially a determination of nonresponsibility. NASA stated that it had not made a nonresponsibility determination but merely rejected the proposal because of the failure to submit required information.


Under the SBA’s COC program, any determination of non-responsibility must be referred to the SBA, if that determination would prevent the small business from receiving award. (The COC is a certificate that states the contractor is responsible for a specific government contract.) See 15 USC 637(b)(7), 13 CFR § 125.5, FAR subpart 19.6. The SBA’s regulations requires the referral for a COC or non-COC after evaluating an offer on a noncomparative basis under one or more responsibility type evaluation factors (e.g. experience of the company, key personnel, or past performance). However, GAO noted that when an agency deems a proposal unacceptable based on the offeror’s failure to submit required information, that finding is not a responsibility determination that necessitates a referral to the SBA. In this case, the agency rejected the proposal because it did not comply with solicitation requirements for submission (missing the model contract)—not because of any responsibility related factor.


Takeaway. Be sure to fully comply with all solicitation requirements. When a solicitation requires a submission of something (like a model contract), you have only three choices:

(1) Provide the required submission in your proposal;

(2) Protest the required submission before the closing date, stating why that submission violates the Federal Acquisition Regulation or exceeds agency minimum needs, or is otherwise unlawful; or

(3) If you can’t provide the required submission, do not bother to submit a proposal because it will be incomplete.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.


5 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Asserting Duress in Signing a Modification

Sand Point Services, LLC brought two claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, both involving modifications.  Sand Point Servs., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820, January 4, 2024.  The f

Requirements Contracts: Words of Exclusivity

The Federal Circuit recently clarified that an agency’s contract may still contain requisite language to make it a requirements contract, even if the contract does not include the required Federal Acq

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page