You are here: Home / Archives for David

Police Unity Tour’s 2nd Annual Fundraising Gala

February 26, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Police Unity Tour Virginia chapter is holding their second annual fundraising gala on March 10th in Chantilly VA. There are still seats available for this special annual event held for this worthwhile cause. If your company is looking for a cause that’s worthy of your investment in time, energy, and resources please consider supporting the Police Unity Tour Chapter IV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This fundraising event, open to the general public and business community, is intended to be both fun and educational. The Police Unity Tour is committed to raising money for the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial Fund, and educating the community about it’s mission and the importance of remembering our fallen officers. The event will feature an elegant dinner, open bar, music, and a silent auction. It will also include a short presentation on the Unity Tour and Memorial, and interaction with our members and survivors. Other VIP guests are expected to be in attendance.

For more information about the cause and this event please visit these sites:

Police Unity Tour Gala 2012

Watch this short video to learn why they ride:

Filed Under: Featured Tagged With:

Increasing Your Success Rate in Winning a Defense Contract

February 12, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Winning and working on a defense contract from the United States is an incredibly rewarding experience that can result in substantial financial gains. Unfortunately, obtaining one of these contracts is not easy, and there is often stiff competition for coveted budget funds. Navigating the process can be extremely tedious, expensive, and outright unsuccessful if you take the wrong approach.

=====================================================================

Many businesses seek a defense contract, but few know the nuances of the procedure to win one. Attempting to target a wide variety of organizations within defense will likely produce poor results, as will marketing a defined product or service or going for the hard sell. Rather, it is important to remain flexible in your approach and to forge and maintain relationships within a specific few organizations. It is also necessary to operate within the confines of the bureaucracy of defense, and to maintain DCAA (Defense Contract Auditing Agency) compliance to adhere to government regulations.

Many businesses aspire to win and work on a United States defense contract. These contracts offer the opportunity to work with the largest spender in the United States, and successful execution can result in a highly profitable relationship with the U.S. government. Defense needs are numerous and varied. In the past, the government has awarded contracts for multi-billion dollar projects such as ship construction and submarine design as well as smaller but still substantial contracts for administration services, health research, and even office chairs and flashlights.  In short, a wide variety of industries can find a niche for a defense contract. Unfortunately, obtaining one of these contracts is not easy. Aside from the necessity of keeping careful records and staying in step with the complex defense bureaucracy, there is often stiff competition for coveted budget funds. Navigating the process can be tedious, expensive, and outright unsuccessful if you approach the project with false assumptions and an aggressive sales mindset. Following is a series of steps that will differentiate your business and proposal from others and increase your chances of success.

1. Avoid the “Scattershot Approach”

Businesses seeking a defense contract would be wise to begin their search with the following piece of advice: focus. If it is important to market to a niche when dealing with consumers, it is even more important to target a specific need within defense. The belief that spending a bunch of time sending information and proposals to a wide variety of organizations within defense will result in a greater chance of having one of them bite is incorrect. Because of the framework of defense and the necessity for flexibility (which will be addressed later), focusing your efforts on just a few organizations — about two to four — will actually increase your chances of obtaining the contract substantially.

By focusing on a few organizations to start, and maintaining a consistent dialogue with individuals in those organizations, you will be better able to hone in on their specific needs. Targeting a large number of organizations will require you to stretch yourself thin in both material and face time, meaning you will be seen as less of a valuable resource. You should be able to define the needs of these organizations before you even attempt to finalize your proposal. It would also be wise to do a substantial amount of background research on your chosen organizations. Websites such as usaspending.gov allow you to see what sort of programs specific organizations have funded in the past, and can give you a good jumping off point for your own product or service proposal.

2. Endear Yourself to the Program Manager

Once you have done your research and decided which organizations you would like to approach, you are going to need to work on developing a personal relationship with them. In effect, that usually means that you will be developing a working relationship with the organization’s program manager. The program manager acts as the liaison between the funding organization and the businesses seeking a contract. That means you, in this case. It is important to realize and understand the fact that the program manager does not have final authority to authorize a contract. He has a complex bureaucracy behind him, with a functioning chain of command in place. Therefore, it is extremely detrimental to your chances of getting a defense contract if you try to give the program manager a hard sell.

First, this tactic can not work because of the aforementioned bureaucracy. Second, and more importantly, if you go for the hard sell you will come off as having one specific product that will address one specific need. This will backfire almost every time, because the odds that they have the specific need that you address in your sell are slim. Instead, in your meetings with the program manager, you need to listen. Be personable, but let him or her talk. Let them tell you the sorts of things that they are looking for. Listen to these needs, take them in, and reflect them back to the program manager. Make sure that they know that you hear them and are willing to work to address their problems.

3. Determine Your Capabilities

After you are able to define the needs of a few specific organizations, you will need to begin determining your capabilities. Note: this does not mean that you should be coming up with specific products or services yet. Rather, consider this an opportunity to appraise your resources, all of the options relating to those resources, and availability of those resources for allocation to a defense contract. Have you done anything in the past that relates to some of the needs of the organizations you are approaching? If you have a store of background data that relates past completion or rollout times for your products or services you will have a better understanding of realistic timelines for this endeavor.

This is also the time to consider the logistics of a possible contract with one of these organizations. Communication and geography are often overlooked when considering a contract with defense, yet those can make a huge difference when an organization decides where they are going to allocate their funds. You should be able to communicate your capabilities to your organizations of choice, using plenty of data to support your claims. Also, you will need to determine whether or not geography is a factor. Obviously when looking at construction projects or something of that nature geography will be a key consideration. However, even if an on-site presence is not strictly necessary, some organizations feel much more comfortable dealing with a business that is “just up the road.”

4. Make Everyone Look like a Rockstar

You have determined your capabilities. Now, it is time to communicate those to the program manager in a meaningful way. This is the time to get creative, and to actually use the bureaucracy to increase your chances of gaining the contract. The program manager, like every employee within an organization, wants to look good to their superiors at the end of the day. As a business proposing solutions to key needs within the organization, you have the opportunity to make the program manager look great to his higher-ups. When discussing approaches to the organization’s problems, keep that fact in the forefront of your conversation, and make sure to mention the ways that you will make the program manager look good specifically.

Don’t be afraid to go a few steps further here, and discuss how you can make his bosses look good as well. Try to ingratiate yourself to the workings of the system. If you are successful, the program manager will ally himself with you and you will be able to use him as an inside resource as you continue to refine your proposal. This grants you data that might otherwise be entirely inaccessible, and will give you a strong competitive advantage when the organization allocates the actual contract.

5. Maintain Flexibility

Now it is time to put together your proposal. Using the information that you have gathered from the program manager and your personal research, you should be able to directly address your chosen organization’s needs. This does not mean that you should introduce defined parameters for your product or service however. To a defense organization, parameters are immediately interpreted as constraints. While some customers outside of defense like the idea of knowing exactly what they are getting, most defense organizations like to know that they have a custom solution with the flexibility to change. Because defense is rooted in the political and economic climate, needs shift constantly. You should be aware of this fact, and should not be intimidated by the knowledge that any specific needs the defense organization identifies now may change drastically by the time your solution is proposed or instituted.

Let defense dictate the parameters of your deliverable. If you can maintain and communicate your capacity for flexibility you will increase your value to the defense organization dramatically. On the same note, recognize that RFP’s can be deceiving, in that they do not necessarily indicate an opening for a new product or service. They may already be filled, or even written with a specific business in mind. However, they can and should be used as a guideline when looking at the types of proposal you should make to your chosen organization.

6. Use a Short Pitch

The time has come for your proposal meeting. You have identified a need and developed an excellent working relationship with the program manager. Now, you will need to decide how to communicate your solution to decision makers within the organization. Many businesses make the mistake of going into the meeting with immense binders filled with detailed information, background research, and a structured plan for addressing every aspect of a company’s problem. This is a poor choice, because it does not communicate your capacity for flexibility and can come off as an attempt to throw resources at a problem until it is solved. Defense organizations prefer a pitch that quickly and efficiently communicates your approach. Be concise.

Identify the following in your pitch, and try not to overwhelm the organization with extraneous information:
• The organization’s pain point
• Your proposed deliverable
• How your deliverable alleviates the organization’s problem
• Benefits and support you and your solution can offer the organization

7. Nail DCAA Compliance

Assuming everything goes well, you will be in prime position to take on the contract. However, you will also need to make sure that you operate within the delicate confines of the defense bureaucracy from this point on. Part of that means maintaining DCAA compliance. Essentially, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) oversees all Department of Defense contracts. Their audits monitor operations, ensuring that all costs are accurately assigned and accounted for. The end goal is the reduction of federal waste and security of equal treatment for all contractors.

While the prospect of such a comprehensive audit can be daunting, it does not need to be difficult or put undue pressure on your company. One of the easiest and most effective ways to prepare for a DCAA audit is the standardization of company accounting systems and the employment of a comprehensive system for tracking employee time. Quality DCAA compliant software can automate this process, making the audit even simpler. Ultimately, you will need to choose a system that works for you, but choosing the right tool for the job will eliminate frustrating bureaucratic roadblocks and will hasten your time to delivery.

Final Thoughts

Clearly, catering to a defense organization differs in several significant ways from more conventional market strategies. Fortunately it is possible to use the structure of the defense system to strategize and produce targeted, value laden products for their specific needs. It is also important to realize that the relationships you build and maintain with defense organizations can have hidden value in the form of future recommendations and consistent business. Defense contracting is not a passive process. It requires active engagement over the life cycle of your proposal and execution of your deliverable. Nevertheless, successful completion of such a lofty project will result in a strong relationship that will greatly enhance the profitability of your business.
About the Authors:
Laura Faulkner, PhD., is a Strategist at FalconDay Consulting & Research. She formerly served as Program Manager and Principal Investigator of multiple Department of Defense and industry projects at the Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin. She has extensive experience with software systems design and fielding for the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, in the information warfare and modeling and simulation domains, including digital communications, intelligence operations, and sonar analysis. Dr. Faulkner earned a PhD. and Masters in Psychology, and undergraduate degrees in Anthropology and Sociology.

Bill Balcezak is General Manager for Journyx, a company that automates payroll, billing and cost accounting while easing management of employee time and expenses. Bill has 25+ years of experience in successfully managing heavily integrated, large-scale, critical software deployments for industry leading clients. His specialty is organizing, orchestrating and delivering successful service scenarios, by isolating and focusing on the critical aspects of technology adoption and using proven methodologies for deployment. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Filed Under: Featured

Privacy Policy Generator

December 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

General Counsel PC and Legal River teamed up to create a Privacy Policy Generator for your website. The Privacy Policy Generator is a free tool that will help you learn more about what you need for your website’s Privacy Policy. It uses your answers to a short questionnaire to construct a sample Privacy Policy for you. If you have any questions, please feel free to email the good folks at LegalRiver at PP at legalriver.com.

Click here: Privacy Policy

Filed Under: GovCon 2.0 Tagged With:

Bid Protest Weekly – December 19, 2011

December 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Bid Protest Weekly is researched, written and distributed by the attorneys of General Counsel, P.C.. Bid Protest Weekly provides weekly summaries of recent bid protest decisions, highlighting key areas of law, agencies, and analyses of the protest process in general.

Bid Protest Weekly – December 19, 2011

1. SECO Systems, Inc., B-404905.3; B-404905.4, October 4, 2011

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: General Services Administration

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Competitive Range

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: If there is no reasonable possibility that a proposal will be considered amount the highest rather offers the GAO is not going to sustain a protest absent a very clear showing that the agency acted unreasonably.

GAO denies the protest of SECO Systems, Inc. where its proposal was excluded from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service (PBS), for administrative and technical support services for GSA’s Rocky Mountain Region.

SECO challenges its exclusion from the competitive range, arguing that the contracting officer (CO) told SECO that GSA was looking for “over and above strengths,” which SECO’s proposal did not provide. SECO also complains that GSA downgraded SECO’s proposal because the price proposal did not provide a narrative discussion, and because of SECO’s key personnel. GAO states that it will review an agency’s evaluation and exclusion of a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the solicitation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Contracting agencies are not required to retain in the competitive range proposals that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for award. In this regard, a protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s evaluation and competitive range judgment does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably.

Here, the record establishes no reasonable possibility that SECO’s proposal would be considered to be among the most highly rated offers, even accepting the protester’s arguments concerning its price proposal and key personnel. The agency determined that, contrary to the RFP’s requirements, SECO failed to provide references for two of its key personnel and failed to identify two projects for its past performance. SECO does not challenge the agency’s determination in this regard. Instead, SECO’s arguments focus upon the two statements in the competitive range determination memorandum that it contends are unreasonable. Even accepting SECO’s arguments, however, SECO’s proposal failed to satisfy all of the RFP’s requirements. GAO cannot say based upon this record that SECO’s proposal should have received higher than a marginal rating, given the proposal’s material deficiencies. Furthermore, SECO’s proposal was substantially higher priced than all but one of the offers included in the competitive range, and the one offer that was slightly lower priced was rated significantly higher technically. Although SECO disagrees with the CO’s competitive range judgment, the protester failed to show that the agency unreasonably concluded that SECO’s proposal was not among the most highly rated offers for inclusion in the competitive range. The protest is denied.

2. SBBI, Inc., B-405754, November 23, 2011

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Transportation

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Uniform Time Act of 1996

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: The time listed in the invitation for bids is always local time for governmental purposes.

GAO denies the protest of SBBI, Inc., under an invitation for bids (IFB), issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), for a roadway construction project for the Coronado National Forest, Graham County, Arizona.

The protester maintains that although the agency changed the location of the bid opening to Phoenix, Arizona, the agency did not change the time for submission of bids. The protester argues that bids were originally required to be submitted by 1:00 p.m. MST which is actually 12:00 p.m. Arizona time, and that bids received after 1:00 p.m. Colorado time should be rejected. GAO has previously held, that under the Uniform Time Act of 1996, 15 U.S.C. sect. 262 (2006), there is one standard time for most governmental purposes, including the time designated for receipt of proposals or opening bids, and that time is the local time, regardless of whether it is referred to as standard time or as daylight savings time in the solicitation.

The agency responds that both Colorado and Arizona are in the MST time zone, but that Arizona does not observe daylight saving time. The agency states that during the months of daylight saving time Arizona is one hour behind the rest of the MST zone. It is the agency’s position that 1:00 pm MST on the IFB referred to the time in Arizona where the solicitation designated bids were to be received, and that all bids were received timely and opened at the proper time and that the awardee was properly declared the apparent low bidder. GAO agrees and states that all bids were submitted to the FHWA Phoenix, Arizona office as required by the IFB and all were received prior to the 1:00 p.m. scheduled bid opening. Thus, all the bids were timely received at the 1:00 p.m. local time for Arizona, the designated place for receipt of bids. The protest is denied.

3. MICCI Imaging Construction Company, Inc., B-405654, November 28, 2011

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Disposition: Protest dismissed.

Keywords: Interested party; set-aside; SDVOSB

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A protestor must be an interested party as defined in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1994 to successfully protest a contract award. In a set aside if the protestor is not qualified for the set aside it cannot be considered an interested party.

GAO dismisses the protest of MICCI Imaging Construction Company, Inc., under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for phase II of a parking garage expansion.

MICCI argues that the VA improperly rejected its proposal because it was not listed in the VA’s database of veteran-owned small business concerns. GAO states that under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. sections 3551-3556 (2006), only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. Determining whether a party is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the protester, and the party’s status in relation to the procurement. A protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained.

Here, MICCI would not be in line for award even if GAO was to sustain the protest because the VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE) has denied its application for inclusion in the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database as a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concern. Although MICCI has filed a request for reconsideration, the determination that MICCI is not an eligible SDVOSB concern remains in effect, and thus provides no basis for GAO to consider the agency’s actions. The protest is dismissed.

4. WingGate Travel, Inc.; AirTrak Travel; and Alamo Travel Group, B-405007.9, November 29, 2011

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Defense

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Risk; Changes clause; equitable adjustment

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Shifting greater risk to the contractor is not grounds for protest. “The increasing burden of risk in federal contracting” an article published in the Washington Business Journal by Lee Dougherty regarding this protest.

GAO denies the protest of WingGate Travel, Inc., et al., based on the terms of a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA), on behalf of the Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO), for travel management services to support the commercial travel office (CTO).

The protesters specifically challenge the RFP provision, establishing that fixed transaction fees will not be adjusted as a consequence of variations from the solicitation’s estimated workload quantities absent a determination that the variation constitutes an “out of scope” change. According to the protesters, this provision, which was not included in prior contracts, puts undue risk on prospective small business contractors. GAO states that as a general rule, the contracting agency must give offerors sufficient detail in a solicitation to enable them to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. However, the contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its needs and the method of accommodating them, including the choice of the appropriate contracting format. GAO will not question an agency’s choice of procurement approach, absent clear evidence that its decision is arbitrary or unreasonable, or in violation of statute or regulation. It is within the administrative discretion of an agency to offer for competition a proposed contract that imposes maximum risks on the contractor and minimum burdens on the agency, and an offeror should account for this in formulating its proposal. Risk is inherent in most types of contracts, particularly fixed-price contracts, and firms must use their professional expertise and business judgment in anticipating a variety of influences affecting performance costs. A mere difference of opinion between the protester and the agency concerning what will best suit the agency does not establish that the agency’s determination as to its requirements placed undue risk on the contractor.

The agency acknowledges that prior procurements for these services have included equitable adjustment provisions based on specified variations in estimated volumes of transactions. It explains, however, that this was done because the agency lacked historical data that would assist offerors in responding to the solicitation and in assessing risk. Having now provided that historical data in this procurement, the agency chose the current solicitation method to ensure that it would pay fixed rates for only those travel services that it required and only as they were required. Contracting agencies are not required to conduct present procurements in a certain manner simply because they conducted past procurements in that manner. Given the agency’s inclusion of extensive historical data in the current solicitation, information that was not available under prior solicitations, the protesters’ challenge, based on the agency’s deviation from former practice, lacks merit.

In addition, the protesters argue that GAO’s decision in BMAR & Assocs., Inc., B-281664, Mar. 18, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 62, requires a different outcome. In BMAR, GAO sustained a protest on the basis that the solicitation at issue subjected contractors to unreasonable risk because it required fixed lump sum pricing for largely undefined civil engineering services. However, GAO state that here, the agency is procuring specific types of services on a fixed‑price, transaction fee basis; the more transactions a prospective contractor performs, the more fee revenue it will earn. Moreover, the solicitation in BMAR had been issued in connection with a public/private competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. In the unique context of that competition GAO found that the lump sum pricing arrangement put private sector offerors at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the public sector competitor because the public sector competitor, unlike the private sector competitor, would not need to account for contingencies in its pricing. The solicitation here was not issued in connection with OMB Circular A-76. The protest is denied.

5. Globecomm Systems, Inc., B-405303.2; B-405303.3, October 31, 2011

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: General Services Administration

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Competitive range; source selection plan

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A poorly written protest that fails to properly argue the facts and law will not be sustained where the record indicates the agency’s action were reasonable.

GAO denies the protest of Globecomm Systems, Inc. where its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range by the General Services Administration (GSA) under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by GSA for worldwide commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) end-to-end solutions.

Globecomm specifically asserts that its proposal fully met the evaluation criteria and should have received ratings that were higher than unacceptable under both the technical/management evaluation factor and the corporate experience evaluation factor. GAO states that it will review an agency’s evaluation and exclusion of a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the solicitation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Contracting agencies are not required to retain proposals in the competitive range that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for award. Further, the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, GAO will not reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. Finally, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information to demonstrate compliance with the solicitation requirements, and an offeror’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.

First, based on GAO’s review of the record, GAO finds nothing unreasonable in the agency’s determination that Globecomm’s proposal failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the importance of the RFP’s requirement regarding timely delivery where the proposal failed to provide a detailed delivery schedule and simply asserted that Globecomm was committed to timely delivery. Although the protester maintains that, even if the solicitation reasonably contemplated more detailed scheduling information, the proposal’s deficiency in this regard should not be considered a significant weakness, it fails to meaningfully dispute or otherwise show to be unreasonable the agency’s analysis of the specific weaknesses in its proposal regarding the delivery requirement; accordingly, Globecomm’s assertions constitute mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment. On the record here, GAO does not question the agency’s determination that Globecomm’s proposal failed to meaningfully comply with the solicitation’s scheduling and delivery requirements.

Next, nothing in Globecomm’s protest nor its comments refute, and in most instances fail to even address why Globecomm believes the agency’s evaluation of its corporate experience was unreasonable. In pursuing this protest, Globecomm has copied portions of its proposal, yet provided virtually no supporting explanation as to why the various copied portions of its proposal render the agency’s criticisms invalid. Based on the record presented, GAO again finds no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of Globecomm’s proposal as unacceptable with regard to the corporate experience factor.

Globecomm also contends that the agency improperly used a predetermined cutoff score to establish the competitive range based on whether or not an offeror has one or more significant weaknesses for the technical/management evaluation factor. The record fails to support the protester’s argument in this regard. The record shows that all eight of the offerors eliminated from the competitive range were rated unacceptable under both the technical/management factor and the corporate experience factor. The record does not indicate that there was a predetermined cutoff based on the number of weaknesses for the technical/management evaluation factor.

Similarly, the protester asserts that the agency failed to consider all of the evaluation factors in making the competitive range decision. However, the record shows that the competitive range consisted of other offerors. Globecomm and seven other offerors were eliminated based on their ratings of unacceptable for both the technical/management and corporate experience evaluation factors. The record indicates that the agency conducted a detailed evaluation of all offerors under all evaluation factors, including price, to make the competitive range determination. On this record, Globecomm’s assertion that the agency failed to consider all of the evaluation factors is without merit.

Finally, Globecomm argues that the agency failed to comply with the source selection plan when determining the competitive range. An agency’s source selection plan is an internal guide that does not give rights to parties; it is the RFP’s evaluation scheme, not internal agency documents such as source selection plans, to which an agency is required to adhere in evaluating proposals. The protest is denied.

Source: General Counsel, P.C.’s Government Contracts Group helps clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the discussed content, or questions about bid protests, please feel free to contact the attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. at (703) 556-0411 or visit them at www.generalcounsellaw.com

Filed Under: Bid Protests

Twitter Rolls Out Brand Pages

December 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Twitter’s brand new brand profile page will enhance your brand’s Twitter presence by allowing you to feature your most important content and giving you more space and flexibility in branding your Twitter page. Your enhanced Twitter profile page will be public so it can be viewed by anyone without the need for them to signup for, or log in.

Enhanced profile pages are currently available to a small selection of brands; they will be rolled out more broadly in the coming weeks and months (12/17/11). They aren’t accepting requests nor is there a waiting list to sign up for just yet. We’ll keep an eye out and send an alert when that changes. In the meantime your marketing talent can plan their attack.

For more information and to follow their roll out of this new feature visit: https://business.twitter.com/advertise/enhanced-profile/ still more information can be found here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169565

If you haven’t reviewed all of the features Twitter offers businesses visit this page to learn more: https://business.twitter.com/

Filed Under: Twitter
« Older Posts