Recent ODRA Cases

Results: 1228 records found
FAA Order	Matter	Docket	Date Served	Decision
ODRA-11-642	Protest of Aydin Displays, Inc.	11-ODRA-00578	10/12/2011	Decision on Request for Suspension Findings and Recommendations Final Order
			10/12/2011	Decision on Request for Suspension Findings and Recommendations Final Order
ODRA-11-605	Protest of CDW Government LLC Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-10-R-00024	11-ODRA-00575	09/06/2011	CDW-G challenged the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) contract (“Contract”) to GTSI Corporation (“GTSI”) by the FAA Product Team (“Product Team”). The award was one of two made pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-00024 (“Solicitation”). The Contract is for servers, storage systems, network devices, and related services as part of the Strategic Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Equipment and Supplies (“SAVES”) Program. CDW-G asserted that: (1) the Solicitation’s evaluation criteria, which gave more weight to price than to technical, was unreasonable; (2) the original price evaluation is not applicable; (3) technical capability should be ranked higher than price; (4) since CDW-G received the highest technical score, it is “most deserving of an award”; and (5) it is “CDW-G’s right to receive an award.” The ODRA found that the Product Team’s best value determination, based on the stated evaluation criteria in the Solicitation, to award a contract to GTSI had a rational basis and was not otherwise arbitrary or capricious. The ODRA recommended that the Protest be denied. Findings and Recommendation Order Decision on Summary Dismissal Motions Decision on Motion for Reconsideration
	Protest of CDW Government LLC Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-10-R-00024		09/06/2011	CDW-G challenged the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) contract (“Contract”) to GTSI Corporation (“GTSI”) by the FAA Product Team (“Product Team”). The award was one of two made pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-00024 (“Solicitation”). The Contract is for servers, storage systems, network devices, and related services as part of the Strategic Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Equipment and Supplies (“SAVES”) Program. CDW-G asserted that: (1) the Solicitation’s evaluation criteria, which gave more weight to price than to technical, was unreasonable; (2) the original price evaluation is not applicable; (3) technical capability should be ranked higher than price; (4) since CDW-G received the highest technical score, it is “most deserving of an award”; and (5) it is “CDW-G’s right to receive an award.” The ODRA found that the Product Team’s best value determination, based on the stated evaluation criteria in the Solicitation, to award a contract to GTSI had a rational basis and was not otherwise arbitrary or capricious. The ODRA recommended that the Protest be denied. Findings and Recommendation Order Decision on Summary Dismissal Motions Decision on Motion for Reconsideration
ODRA-11-602	Protest of Systems Research and Applications Corporation Pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-05084	10-ODRA-00562	08/08/2011	Systems Research and Applications Corporation (“SRA”) protests the award of a Contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation Information Systems & Global Services (“Lockheed Martin”). The Contract (“Contract”), issued under Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-05084 (“Solicitation” or “SIR”), is potentially worth $1.4 Billion dollars for the total contract period, which is comprised of a base period of four years and two 3-year option periods. The protested award is for the National Airspace System Integration Support Services (“NISC”). NISC provides professional, technical, and planning support for various Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) organizations, which are responsible for the National Airspace System (“NAS”). The contract type is cost-plus-award-fee. The ODRA finds that the challenged award to Lockheed Martin has not been shown to lack a rational basis or otherwise to have been arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. The ODRA therefore recommends that the Protests be denied on all grounds. (Findings and Recommendation and Order).
	Protest of Systems Research and Applications Corporation Pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-05084		08/08/2011	Systems Research and Applications Corporation (“SRA”) protests the award of a Contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation Information Systems & Global Services (“Lockheed Martin”). The Contract (“Contract”), issued under Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-05084 (“Solicitation” or “SIR”), is potentially worth $1.4 Billion dollars for the total contract period, which is comprised of a base period of four years and two 3-year option periods. The protested award is for the National Airspace System Integration Support Services (“NISC”). NISC provides professional, technical, and planning support for various Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) organizations, which are responsible for the National Airspace System (“NAS”). The contract type is cost-plus-award-fee. The ODRA finds that the challenged award to Lockheed Martin has not been shown to lack a rational basis or otherwise to have been arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. The ODRA therefore recommends that the Protests be denied on all grounds. (Findings and Recommendation and Order).
ODRA-11-585; ODRA-11-597	Protest of Apptis, Inc., Under Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-SE2020-SIR2FO	10-ODRA-00557	07/14/2011	Protest sustained. Apptis, Inc. (“Apptis”) protested the award of a second cost-plus-fixed-fee, task order contract to TASC, Inc. (“TASC Contract”). The TASC Contract is for Systems Engineering Support Services for the Agency’s Systems Engineering 2020 Program (“Program”). The Protest challenged the award on several grounds, but the ODRA called for initial briefing on the first ground of protest, i.e., whether the Solicitation permitted multiple awards. The ODRA found that Solicitation provided for only one award. The ODRA also rejected the Product Team’s argument that a rational basis justified the second award regardless of whether the terms in the Solicitation or the AMS permitted multiple awards. In a Supplementary Statement, the ODRA Director noted that the AMS provides “significant flexibility and discretion to contracting personnel,” but does not condone “actions that are inconsistent with the principles, policies, and mandatory procedures of the AMS itself.” The Administrator’s first Order in this matter sustained the protest on the first ground, and ordered the parties to provide further briefing on the appropriate remedy. (Findings and Recommendation) and (Order No. ODRA-11-585 (05/13/2011)). The parties subsequently engaged in an alternative dispute resolution process (“ADR”) that resulted in a joint submission to the ODRA regarding the remedy. Specifically, the parties advocated that the TASC Contract remain in place to fulfill a contingency in a separate agreement between TASC and Apptis. The ODRA found that the proposed remedy satisfied the standard found at 14 C.F.R. § 17.21(b), and was consistent with the FAA’s unique statutory mandate at 49 U.S.C. § 40110(d)(1) to resolve bid protests using consensual ADR techniques to the maximum extent practicable. (Findings and Recommendations on Final Remedy). The Administrator adopted and incorporated the ODRA’s recommendation to let the TASC Contract remain in place and not be terminated for convenience. (Order No. ODRA-11-597 (07/14/2011)).
			07/14/2011	Protest sustained. Apptis, Inc. (“Apptis”) protested the award of a second cost-plus-fixed-fee, task order contract to TASC, Inc. (“TASC Contract”). The TASC Contract is for Systems Engineering Support Services for the Agency’s Systems Engineering 2020 Program (“Program”). The Protest challenged the award on several grounds, but the ODRA called for initial briefing on the first ground of protest, i.e., whether the Solicitation permitted multiple awards. The ODRA found that Solicitation provided for only one award. The ODRA also rejected the Product Team’s argument that a rational basis justified the second award regardless of whether the terms in the Solicitation or the AMS permitted multiple awards. In a Supplementary Statement, the ODRA Director noted that the AMS provides “significant flexibility and discretion to contracting personnel,” but does not condone “actions that are inconsistent with the principles, policies, and mandatory procedures of the AMS itself.” The Administrator’s first Order in this matter sustained the protest on the first ground, and ordered the parties to provide further briefing on the appropriate remedy. (Findings and Recommendation) and (Order No. ODRA-11-585 (05/13/2011)). The parties subsequently engaged in an alternative dispute resolution process (“ADR”) that resulted in a joint submission to the ODRA regarding the remedy. Specifically, the parties advocated that the TASC Contract remain in place to fulfill a contingency in a separate agreement between TASC and Apptis. The ODRA found that the proposed remedy satisfied the standard found at 14 C.F.R. § 17.21(b), and was consistent with the FAA’s unique statutory mandate at 49 U.S.C. § 40110(d)(1) to resolve bid protests using consensual ADR techniques to the maximum extent practicable. (Findings and Recommendations on Final Remedy). The Administrator adopted and incorporated the ODRA’s recommendation to let the TASC Contract remain in place and not be terminated for convenience. (Order No. ODRA-11-597 (07/14/2011)).
ODRA-11-597	Protest of Apptis, Inc. Under Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-SE2020-SIR2FO		07/08/2011	DECISION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL ORDER
			07/08/2011	DECISION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL ORDER
<< See prev 10 >> See next 10 << Top >> < New Search >

USA Banner

Recent ODRA Cases

U.S. Department of Transportation