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 9:49 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

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.


contracts DB