DynCorp, AECOM clash over LOGCAP V protest
As is its custom, the Government Accountability Office has dismissed three pending protests after a fourth disappointed bidder turned to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hear its grievances involving the $82 billion "LOGCAP V" contract.
The Court of Federal Claims has higher jurisdiction than GAO, so any ruling the court makes trumps any GAO decision. So whenever a protest goes to the court, GAO dismisses any other related protests it has pending.
In this case, protests by AECOM, Fluor and a PAE-Parsons joint venture were all dismissed after DynCorp took its protest to the Court of Federal Claims.
DynCorp has already seen GAO deny its protest of being left off the 15-year LOGCAP V contract. The company is an incumbent on LOGCAP IV and business under that contract accounts for about one-fifth of its revenue.
The Army uses the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program for logistics and other professional services worldwide. The big change from LOGCAP IV to the new fifth version is that it consolidated more procurements and divided the contract by regional commands, plus one award set aside for Afghanistan.
Like DynCorp, AECOM was left off the contract entirely. Fluor and the PAE-Parsons venture filed protests with GAO because they wanted more than the smaller regions they were awarded. KBR and Vectrus won the largest portions of LOGCAP V when the Army made awards, making four winners in total.
In looking at the filings with the court, AECOM is none too pleased with DynCorp.
AECOM filed with the court to be an intervenor as a party with an interest in the outcome of the court’s decision.
AECOM argued that it urged DynCorp to wait for GAO’s decision on its protest or at least allow it to get an outcome prediction from GAO. GAO’s decision in the AECOM case was due Aug. 9 but DynCorp filed its case with the court on Aug. 5. “DynCorp has jumped the gun to AECOM’s great prejudice,” AECOM wrote.
The company also argues that its protest with GAO was different from DynCorp’s. GAO’s decision to deny DynCorp’s protest “should have no bearing on AECOM’s meritorious GAO bid protest.”
It went on to complain, “DynCorp has deprived AECOM of a decision at GAO, its chosen forum.”
But Judge Loren A. Smith has denied AECOM’s request to join the case in a short, one-paragraph order.
All of the four winners -- KBR, Vectrus, Fluor and the PAE-Parsons team -- did get their motions to intervene granted, however.
AECOM will follow this case closely, I’m sure. The court’s ultimate decision could help its efforts to get on LOGCAP V or it could squash them. But they just have to stand on the sidelines and wait.
Posted by Nick Wakeman on Aug 08, 2019 at 8:20 AM