Under the Experience factor, the protester objected that the agency should not have credited the awardee with the experience of its sister companies-that is, other subsidiaries of a common corporate parent. The protester argued that, without the sisters’ experience projects, the awardee on its own would lack the minimum number of relevant experience projects required by the solicitation and would be ineligible for award. The government countered that, as a general rule, an agency may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror’s affiliates if those affiliates (as here) are proposed to have a meaningful role in contract performance. The government further argued that the Past Performance factor expressly permitted consideration of sister company past performance, and the Price factor required information concerning any affiliates (such as sister companies) that would support performance. The government argued this showed that the solicitation contemplated consideration of sister company experience, in accordance with the general allowance for such consideration set forth in case law.

Court of Federal Claims considered a protest challenging an award on a number of grounds. We will focus on the protester’s successful arguments under the Experience and Past Performance evaluation factors. United States : Affiliate Experience and Distinguishing Past Performance In this month’s bid protest roundup, we consider: (1) an exception to the normal rule governing reliance on affiliate experience and past performance and (2) two different bid protests of very similar solicitation terms that reached opposite conclusions concerning whether a joint venture offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). All three protest decisions are timely reminders for offerors to pay close attention to solicitation requirements and restrictions.

Venture forthe employment