Bid Protest Law : Government Contracts Lawyer & Attorney : K & L Gates Law Firm : Contract Compliance, Bid Protests

Citing 10 reasons in a 67-page opinion, GAO sustained a protest filed by The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) of the highly-publicized award by the Air Force to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop”) for its new generation aerial refueling tankers.  Boeing prevailed on several garden variety protest grounds often seen, but usually unsuccessful in GAO protests.  Here, GAO found that the Air Force made “significant errors” in evaluating proposals, engaged in inadequate and unequal discussions, improperly evaluated costs, and therefore made an improper source selection decision.  GAO also addressed several other arguments, including those related to timeliness and document requests under GAO regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Federal Claims issued a permanent injunction prohibiting purchase by the Marine Corps System Command of up to 300 Large Field Refrigeration Systems (“LFRS”) from Sea Box, Inc. (“Sea Box”) finding that the agency’s determination that the LFRS’ were compliant with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) was arbitrary and capricious.  After GAO denied its protest, Sea Box filed a motion in the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) to enjoin the agency from proceeding with the procurement.  The agency agreed to voluntarily stay the procurement pending the CFC protest.  The CFC entered a permanent injunction, finding that the award to Sea Box was “arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Using its new authority to hear protests of task and delivery orders involving procurements over $10 million, GAO sustained the protest of Delex Systems, Inc. (“Delex”) of the Department of Navy, Naval Air Systems’ (“NAVAIR”) issuance of a delivery order under a multiple award contract as unrestricted.  Delex argued, and GSA agreed, that task and delivery orders issued under multiple-award schedule contracts are subject to the small business set-aside provisions of FAR § 19.502-2(b) and that the contracting officer’s determination that the agency had no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two responsible small businesses was unreasonable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks