GAO Sustains Challenge to Evaluation Language Requiring a Joint Venture Protégé Member to Have the Same Experience as Other Offerors
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.27.21
The Government Accountability Office sustained a protest (Innovate Now, LLC, B-419546, April 26, 2021) against an Air Force solicitation that required the protégé member of any mentor-protégé joint venture offeror to meet the same experience requirements as all other offerors. Specifically, the RFP required that a joint venture offeror must provide a minimum of at least one work sample from each member of the joint venture that reflected a federal contract performed by the entity as a prime contractor on a non-fixed price basis for at least six months within the last five years. The protester argued that the language directly violated the past performance, experience, and capabilities evaluation criteria for small business joint ventures in 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e). That provision explains that “a procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally.” SBA, whose opinion GAO solicited, agreed with the protester, noting that while 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) does not mandate a particular level or type of experience and provides agencies with the flexibility to determine the appropriate criteria, protégés must be held to a different experience standard from mentors and other offerors. The underlying rationale for SBA’s rule, and the mentor-protégé relationship, is that a protege may not be able to meet all performance requirements by itself and therefore can gain experience through the help of its mentor and joint venture partner. Ultimately, GAO ruled that the RFP’s experience requirement violates the express prohibition in SBA’s regulations.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision
Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know




