What lies ahead in $82B Army LOGCAP V court fight

The battle over a potential $82 billion Army logistics contract has seen companies who lost and those who won all try to join the fray since disappointed bidder DynCorp International took its fight to court earlier this month.

Here is how events have gotten to this point. McLean, Virginia-based DynCorp filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims after its protest over not getting an award on the LOGCAP V contract was denied by the Government Accountability Office.

Along with DynCorp, AECOM was the other bidder not selected for any award on the lucrative contract in mid-April and also had subsequently protested to GAO. That protest and all others were dismissed after DynCorp filed with the court, which has greater authority to enforce decisions on bid protests.

DynCorp is an incumbent on the current and fourth iteration of the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program for global logistics and other professional services.

AECOM received one setback in its own fight for at least a second shot at the contract when its motion to be an intervenor with an interest in the outcome of DynCorp’s case was denied. While AECOM will have to sit back and watch, the four companies who did win seats on the LOGCAP V contract were granted motions to intervene in the case: KBR, Vectrus, Fluor Corp. and a PAE-Parsons joint venture.

But AECOM has since scored one minor victory despite not being able to participate in the case. On Aug. 13, the court granted AECOM’s motion to get an advisory opinion from GAO on the company’s protest.

Fast forward to Wednesday, and the court has requested GAO provide that opinion on or before Sept. 4. In AECOM’s filing to intervene, the company said it wanted DynCorp to wait for either a decision or outcome prediction from GAO on the latter’s protest.

The judge overseeing the case involving DynCorp wants “GAO’s advisory opinion be issued in the form of the decision GAO would have published had AECOM’s protest not been dismissed two days prior to the deadline for the decision,” according to court filings.

A GAO decision on AECOM’s protest was due Aug. 9, but DynCorp filed with the court on Aug. 5. AECOM claimed that it had protested on different grounds than DynCorp. GAO’s decision on DynCorp’s protest remains sealed under a protective order.

Meanwhile, the court has set Nov. 21 as the date for oral arguments in DynCorp’s case. Also this week, a redacted version of DynCorp’s 58-page complaint was unsealed and details its claims that the branch did not receive the same treatment as others in the running.

The company claims the Army “conducted unequal and misleading discussions” among the competitors and helping others change their proposals but not DynCorp, the complaint reads.

DynCorp disputes the Army’s method pricing evaluation and how the branch made its best-value determinations, among other issues.