DynCorp loses protest over mismatched 'CAGE' codes

This recent Government Accountability Office decision that went against DynCorp International is a great example of just how by-the-book procurement officials can be.

Life is full of gray but when it comes to your proposal, you better make sure everything is black and white.

Here’s DynCorp’s story. They were one of several bidders on a task order worth more than $180 million to provide maintenance, supply and transportation services at Fort Bliss, Texas under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise program, also known as EAGLE.

The Army awarded a task order to Technical LLC. Then DynCorp filed a protest after it learned that the Army rejected its proposal as “unacceptable.”

Bidders were to submit three individual subcontracting reports for recent contracts that included a subcontracting plan. DynCorp did this but the Army didn’t like that the commercial and government entity codes on those ISRs didn’t match the CAGE code that DynCorp had on its proposal.

Just to be clear, DynCorp wasn’t submitting reports from other companies. These were all reports on contracts that DynCorp held. It was just that DynCorp has multiple CAGE codes because it is a big company and has multiple legal entities. Just like a lot of other companies.

But for the Army that was no good. The mismatched CAGE codes were a big deal to them. Why exactly, I’m not sure. It’s still the same company. But GAO ruled the Army was within their rights to reject DynCorp’s bid.

The takeaway: if you customer is a stickler, know it and act accordingly.