Score round two to Lockheed Martin as it battles with General Dynamics for an IT contract to support the Army’s IT Agency Operations Directorate.
General Dynamics IT won the contract, but Lockheed Martin filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office objecting to the Army’s evaluation and source selection decision.
for more on why Lockheed is fighting so hard for this contract.
After reviewing Lockheed’s protest, the Army has decided to withdraw its award to GDIT and take a corrective action. That move led GAO to dismiss Lockheed’s protest without ruling on its merits.
It’s interesting to look at what the Army told the GAO it will now do:
- Conduct an organizational conflict of interest investigation.
- Perform a price realism analysis for fixed-price line items.
- Review its evaluation of proposals and, if necessary, perform additional evaluation.
- Review its cost realism analysis of cost-reimbursement line items and, if necessary, perform more analysis.
- Issue a new source-selection decision.
At this stage, Lockheed has scored a nice victory, but there are no guarantees. The Army is just as likely to award the contract to General Dynamics again. Of course, Lockheed can refile the protest, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
Details are sparse on what the contract is for other than the general description of enterprise transport management services.
According to its website, the Army’s IT Agency is responsible for the Army’s IT infrastructure around Washington D.C. Its tagline is Creating Connections by Putting the Byte into Fight.
The agency has six lines of services: business administration, enterprise management, operations, customer care, engineering, and enterprise information and mission assurance.
Posted on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM0 comments
The Government Accountability Office denied a request for reconsideration from Aljucar, Anvil-Incus & Co. and Rudy Sutherland, who objected to the joint venture requirements in the General Services Administration’s $60 billion OASIS contract.
GAO earlier denied Aljucar’s protest that the GSA was too restrictive when it said it would not look at the past performance of the individual members of a joint venture. They would only consider the past performance of the joint venture itself.
Aljucar argued that restriction was unfair to small businesses and wouldn’t let them form joint ventures specifically to pursue OASIS, GSA’s huge contract for complex professional services.
GAO sided with GSA, finding that the agency justified the restriction because its market research showed that joint ventures that didn’t have a history of working together presented a higher risk than experienced joint ventures.
To prevail in a reconsideration, Aljucar needed to show that GAO made an error of fact or law.
The company, which is an advisory firm representing the interests of small businesses, repeated its contention that the GSA restrictions on OASIS were too burdensome for most companies. That argument was not a basis for reconsideration, GAO said.
Aljucar also presented GAO with an Office of Management and Budget guidance document on how to collect and use past performance information. GAO rejected this because the guidance wasn’t part of Aljucar’s original protest.
“A party’s failure to make all arguments or submit all information available during the course of the initial protest undermines the goals of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of both parties’ arguments on a fully developed record--and cannot justify reconsideration of our prior decision,” GAO wrote. “Since [Aljucar] knew, or should have known, about these authorities at the time of its initial protest, it may not rely on them now as a basis for reconsideration.”
The question remains on whether this is the end of the line for Aljucar and its leader Rudy Sutherland.
He also leads a group called the Voice of Small Business in America. He’s argued since the release of the OASIS solicitation that the large business portion of the contract was unfair to small business.
His protests to GSA and GAO have been denied at nearly every turn. The next step would be the Court of Federal Claims.
We’ll keep you posted.
Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM0 comments
We’re proud to announce the official launch of our contract award database as a new benefit for our Washington Technology Insider members.
The database gathers all the contract awards we’ve covered since Jan. 1, 2013, and puts them into a sortable and downloadable format.
On our site, you can sort the contract awards by six different parameters: date, agency, company, contract name, value and service area. The information can be downloaded into a spreadsheet so you can port the information into your own program and slice and dice it any way you want.
The database also includes links to the stories we’ve written about the contract, and if a Top 100 company is the winner, we link to the company profile.
We think you’ll find this to be an important tool and source of information on competitive landscape.
We have two different databases: One covers awards announced in 2013 and includes 947 entries.
The 2014 database has 190 entries and counting. We’ll be updating it daily.
We’ve been developing this for several months, and it is something we’ve talked about for a couple years. But it wasn’t until we launched our Insider program last year that it became a possibility.
We made a promise then that we would be constantly striving to add new and valuable features for our Insider members.
To date, we’ve published three exclusive market research reports: Two that explored the prime contractor-subcontractor relationship, and a third that looks at the purchasing priorities of government buyers.
A fourth report on the government customer’s perspective on the performance of contractors is just a few weeks away from being published.
And I sincerely want to thank the people who came on board as our charter members when these extras were just promises.
I feel we are living up to the commitment we made to you, but we aren’t done yet. We’re going to keep looking for ways we can add value and help our members succeed.
We also welcome your ideas on ways we can improve our content and add new features. My inbox is always open: email@example.com
Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 7:51 AM0 comments