Northrop Grumman protests lost $2.6B contract award
Northrop Grumman filed a protest with GAO after GSA decided to recompete a 10-year, $2.6 billion contract it had won.
Northrop Grumman Corp. wants answers to General Services Administration's decision to take back a $2.6 billion IT contract it had awarded to the company, the company said today.
“Northrop Grumman has been unable to confirm the basis for the U.S. General Services Administration’s extraordinary decision to cancel the award to Northrop Grumman and has asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to review the GSA’s actions,” Mark Root, spokesman for the company, said.
RELATED STORIES
Northrop Grumman beats rivals to win DHS headquarters contract
Northrop Grumman sales help push up third-quarter
After picking the company, GSA withdrew its award to Northrop Grumman, after other contractors filed protests against the award.
GSA found its best option was a new solicitation for the work “to allow for re-solicitation and to expediently and effectively resolve any and all issues raised in the protests,” Sara Merriam, GSA’s press secretary, said in a statement.
“After reviewing the protests filed in response to the St. Elizabeths' IT award, GSA decided that the best course of action was to re-solicit the requirements,” she said.
GSA decided to cancel the awarded contract and is already preparing a new solicitation to be issued soon, which will include any updated requirements. GSA has also assigned a new procurement team, including a new contracting officer and a new technical evaluation board chairman, for this new procurement, Merriam said.
The do-over won’t impede GSA’s objective of building the IT infrastructure in parallel with the construction project.
“On time and on budget completion of this project for DHS is of paramount importance to GSA, and this re-procurement is not expected to negatively impact the project’s schedule or funding,” Merriam said.
A Government Accountability Office decision on Nortrhop Grumman's protest is due March 2.
NEXT STORY: WikiLeaks no-peeking order: Silly or serious?