Air Force suspends three firms for bad, unfinished work

Air Force officials have suspended three IT companies after they left their work unfinished on two buildings at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland and have been unwilling to provide information on source-code data so officials can fix their work, according to a government document.

The suspended companies are Advanced C4 Solutions, Inc., a Florida-based company, which was the prime contractor, and two subcontractors, Superior Communications Solutions Inc., based on Georgia, and Iron Bow Technologies, based in Virginia.

Air Force officials are also considering debarring the companies from doing business with the government any longer, according to the Air Force report from Oct. 24 on the proposed debarments. The three companies have been listed on the Excluded Parties List System since then.

None of the companies returned calls and emails today for comment. Representatives from Iron Bow Technologies have said they are working to resolve the problems.

The suspensions, and possible debarments, stem largely from unfinished work.

In June 2010, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Systems Center Atlantic awarded Advanced C4 Solutions with a multi-million dollar task order associated with a major IT and furnishing project for the Jones and Smart Buildings, which are at Andrews, according the document.

Advanced C4 Solutions, and the two subcontractors, were supposed to provide mission-critical IT to more than 2,200 personnel within the first two months after the buildings reopened. They failed to meet the requirements of the task order, according to the Air Force. The IT that was installed didn’t work well.

During a review, an unaffiliated contractor discovered 14 critical findings, 19 major findings and seven minor findings that affected the overall security and the access to the technology systems.

There were also more than 145 customer-generated trouble tickets, identifying incorrectly configured network equipment, bad installation work, and a disregard for regulations on critical network security and information protection, the Air Force said.

Despite all of that, the companies stopped their work and left the job site without finishing the job. Since then, they have been unwilling to provide operational manuals or source-code data, so Air Force officials can begin to fix the work. For example, the audio-visual and teleconference systems are not working because of the IT installation work isn’t done, the Air Force said.

There was also a conflict of interest among the companies. Executives from the three companies assisted in developing requirements and cost estimates for the project. They participated in conducting market research. The law doesn’t allow that, the document states.

“Even though [the companies] improperly developed their own contract requirements, the subjects failed to meet their own requirements,” the document states.

In all, it's caused substantial harm to the Air Force, according to the document.

“This failure provides a basis for each of their debarments,” Steven Shaw, deputy general counsel at the Air Force, wrote in the document.

Even more so, these companies have histories of failing to do their work, and their performance on other contracts has not been good. Shaw wrote that it’s more evidence for possible debarments.

An Air Force spokesman today said this is a pending administrative action and therefore limited in providing further details.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Reader Comments

Thu, Dec 1, 2011 Tony San Antonio

After all these negative comments without knowing the ACTUAL facts of the situation it seems the AF must have made a mistake. Iron Bow Technologies has been removed from the list and the only folks on it from the project are the prime. Seems a bit of a shame to discredit a sub to a sub when they may have fulfilled there part of the deal. Having retired from the Air Force I do know the Air Force way is that you are guilty until proven innocent.

Thu, Nov 10, 2011

Two points. The AF Contracting department didn't fulfill their jobs requirements when reviewing the bid. If the offending contractors were improperly a part of the SOW generation then they shouldn't have been allowed to bid, much less awarded. HOWEVER per FAR 9.505-2(b)(1)(iii) contractor participation in that activity is NOT specifically against the applicable regulation(s)/law. Secondly SPAWAR as a procurement agency is an absolute JOKE of an organization.....Lazy is an understatement!!!

Tue, Nov 8, 2011 DLS san jose, ça

Why in the world would anyone hire a contractor with a poor record already established, seems ignorant to me... oh wait, its the government, no wonder.

Fri, Nov 4, 2011

Sorry...but the QUALS that were submitted and the follow-up for the validated of prior work experience directly falls on the review and award commitee. The AF did not do their homework when they awarded this contract so now they are paying the price. Major egg in the face here all around.

Fri, Nov 4, 2011 Frank Maryland

Ah yes, another successful 8a story.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close
SEARCH
 Top 100 Slideshow
contracts DB

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Read More

  • Is SBA MIA on contractor fraud? Nick Wakeman

    Editor Nick Wakeman explores the puzzle of why SBA has been so silent on the latest contractor fraud scandal when it has been so quick to act in other cases. Read More

Webcasts