Air Force challenges GAO after $300M satellite contract protest
The service branch wants a reconsideration after the Government Accountability Office sided with ATP Gov over certification requirements for portable satellite terminals.
A fight over a $300 million satellite task order has taken an unusual turn, with the Air Force filing its own protest after the Government Accountability Office ruled against the service branch.
The dispute involves an order put through the NASA SEWP V vehicle to buy portable satellite terminals, and related equipment and services.
The Air Force had two requirements: the terminals be certified, plus have auto-tracking and auto-acquisition functionality.
IGov Technologies won the order, but one of the losing bidders in ATP Gov filed a protest.
One of ATP Gov's main complaints is that the terminals iGov would supply were not certified with the auto-tracking and acquisition features in place. According to the unsealed decision, iGov planned to add the features and recertify the equipment before delivering it.
The price difference between the two bids is significant. iGov’s bid was $180.2 million compared to ATP’s at $300.2 million.
But the price didn’t really matter to GAO because the iGov terminals didn’t meet the requirements of the contract, which said that the terminals needed to be certified and have the auto-tracking and acquisition features when proposals were submitted.
The Air Force tried to claim that ATP was wrong to argue that the requirement applied to when proposals were submitted.
But GAO pointed to the question-and-answer filing made by the Air Force, where the question about the requirement was asked. The Air Force answered yes.
GAO’s decision includes the reminder that the Q&A filings are part of the solicitation. When the Air Force answered yes, they made the certification and auto-tracking and acquisition a requirement when proposals were filed.
“The agency’s reading of the solicitation is unreasonable; question 58 and the agency’s answer formed part of the solicitation and clearly explained to offerors that the solicitation’s requirement that the terminal assembly be WGS certified must be met at the time of proposal submission,” GAO wrote.
Because iGov’s terminals didn’t meet that requirement, the proposal needed to be disqualified.
“Clearly stated RFP requirements are considered material to the needs of the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to material terms is unacceptable and may not form the basis for award,” GAO said.
In its recommendation, GAO wants the Air Force to re-evaluate proposals and make a new award or revise the solicitation.
It is a rarity for GAO to completely overturn a decision because of a request for reconsideration. The most the Air Force can reasonably hope for is an adjustment to the recommendation.
GAO expects to make its ruling by April 25.