WT Business Beat

By Nick Wakeman

Blog archive
Nick Wakeman

Booz Allen fights for chance to compete

Booz Allen Hamilton has filed a second protest as it fights for the chance to compete for an Army contract disposing of chemical weapons and related material.

The Army plans to award a sole-source contract to Science Applications International Corp., which has been doing the work for the Army for 20 years.

The contract has a huge convoluted name, but it deals with support for the destruction of non-stockpile chemical weapons material at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado. The solicitation number is W52P1J-13-R-0106.

Contractor support is needed for work on what the Army calls “problematic chemical munitions” that cannot be easily put through the chemical destruction plant, which uses an automated process for destroying the weapons.

In its justification notice, the Army says that a competition would duplicate costs that couldn’t be recovered, which is pretty much boiler plate language in these justification documents.

The Army says it needs SAIC’s “highly specialized services.”

The notice does not include a dollar value for the work, but it will be a five-year contract.

Booz Allen filed its first protest in July shortly after the Army said it was going the sole source route. Its second protest amended the first, and was filed last week. A decision is due Dec. 2.

Basically, what Booz Allen is arguing is that they should at least have the opportunity to compete, and I think they have a point.

After all, the Army awarded a $489 million contract last year to SAIC, Booz Allen, the Shaw Group, Teledyne Brown Engineering, and Tetra Tech Inc. The contract is set up so these companies will compete for similar work under the Program and Integration Support V contract. Previous versions of that contract had a single winner – SAIC. It’s been lucrative work for the company, pulling in $520 million task orders since 2007, according to Deltek.

So, there is a competitive vehicle in place, but the Army’s not using it. Seems like a tough position to defend, if you ask me.

Posted by Nick Wakeman on Aug 27, 2013 at 8:20 AM


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!