ARMY

Serco falls short on LOGCAP protest

The Government Accountability Office has ruled against Serco Inc.’s bid protest of a $135 million Army contract award to Jacobs Technology for logistics support.

Serco held the incumbent contract to support the Army Logistics Civil Augmentation program known as LOGCAP. The company held the contract since 2007 and had earned about $165 million in task orders for support services such as program office support, program manager support and contracting support.

LOGCAP itself is held by DynCorp, Fluor and Kellogg Brown and Root.

The new contract with Jacobs is worth $135 million over three years.

In its protest, Serco said the agency conducted flawed discussions, misevaluated the technical and management proposals, conducted a flawed realism analysis and failed to consider an alleged conflict of interest.

GAO denied all of those protest points.

On the conflict of interest point, Serco claimed that there was an organizational conflict of interest for Jacobs Technology because it is a business unit of Jacobs Engineering Group. Jacobs Engineering competes in the construction and engineering industry against the LOGCAP contractors. Because of this Jacobs has a conflict, Serco argued.

To argue that there is a conflict of interest, a protester needs to submit what GAO called “hard facts,” and GAO ruled that Serco’s allegation was speculation, and was not enough to overrule the contracting officer’s decision.

On pricing, Serco claimed Jacob’s prices were too low to support its proposed solution, but GAO found no basis to support the allegation.

Serco also claimed that Army discussions with the bidders were unequal and misleading, but GAO found that Serco took an Army request for more information to mean that it wasn’t to use “cross-leveraging” for its labor costs. This misunderstanding led Serco to increase its labor rates.

But GAO again found that there was no evidence of unequal discussions.

Serco officials declined to comment on GAO’s decision.

About the Author

Nick Wakeman is the editor-in-chief of Washington Technology. Follow him on Twitter: @nick_wakeman.

Reader 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
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

  • How Do You Support the Project Lifecycle?

    How do best-in-class project-based companies create and actively mature successful organizations? They find the right mix of people, processes and tools that enable them to effectively manage the project lifecycle. REGISTER for this webinar to hear how properly managing the cycle of capture, bid, accounting, execution, IPM and analysis will allow you to better manage your programs to stay on scope, schedule and budget. Learn More!

  • Sequestration, LPTA and the Top 100

    Join Washington Technology’s Editor-in-Chief Nick Wakeman as he analyzes the annual Top 100 list and reveals critical insights into how market trends have impacted its composition. You'll learn what movements of individual companies means and how the market overall is being impacted by the current budget environment, how the Top 100 rankings reflect the major trends in the market today and how the biggest companies in the market are adapting to today’s competitive environment. Learn More!