| FAA Order | Matter | Docket | Date Served | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ODRA-11-579 | Protest of CGH Technologies, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-000 | 10-ODRA-00556 | 03/31/2011 |
CGH Technologies, Inc. (“CGH”) filed a post-award bid protest (“Protest”) with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (“ODRA”). The Protest challenges the award of Contract No. DTFAWA-10-C-00117 (“Contract”) to Enterprise Information Services, Inc. (“EIS”) under Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-0004 (“SIR” or “Solicitation”) for Architectural System Engineering and Support Services (“ASESS”) in support of the development of the NextGen Air Traffic System. The Protest generally challenged the fairness of the evaluation of its proposal and alleges that its debriefing was inadequate. Specifically, CGH identified the following issues, among others, as not addressed adequately in its debriefing: (1) inconsistency between its proposal being rated first overall and a statement by the evaluators that “the CGH Team shows a lack of understanding of the SOW and contract scope;” (2) inconsistency of finding a key strength for CGH based on the number of key personnel exceeding the education and experience requirements, and evaluation statements that identified weaknesses on several resumes; (3) lack of a detailed explanation of discriminating award factors between CGH and EIS; (4) failure to answer questions regarding the finding of a deficiency relative to CGH’s subcontracting strategy; and (5) failure to address CGH concerns regarding public comments of EIS stating that it would win the contract, and Agency’s subsequent hiring of an EIS employee. Protest at 1-3. The ODRA recommended that CGH’s Protest be denied in its entirety. CGH had failed to show that the decision to award the Contract to EIS lacked a rational basis or was otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. (Decision on Timeliness of Protest Ground Findings and Recommendation Order). |
| Protest of CGH Technologies, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-000 | 03/31/2011 |
CGH Technologies, Inc. (“CGH”) filed a post-award bid protest (“Protest”) with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (“ODRA”). The Protest challenges the award of Contract No. DTFAWA-10-C-00117 (“Contract”) to Enterprise Information Services, Inc. (“EIS”) under Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-0004 (“SIR” or “Solicitation”) for Architectural System Engineering and Support Services (“ASESS”) in support of the development of the NextGen Air Traffic System. The Protest generally challenged the fairness of the evaluation of its proposal and alleges that its debriefing was inadequate. Specifically, CGH identified the following issues, among others, as not addressed adequately in its debriefing: (1) inconsistency between its proposal being rated first overall and a statement by the evaluators that “the CGH Team shows a lack of understanding of the SOW and contract scope;” (2) inconsistency of finding a key strength for CGH based on the number of key personnel exceeding the education and experience requirements, and evaluation statements that identified weaknesses on several resumes; (3) lack of a detailed explanation of discriminating award factors between CGH and EIS; (4) failure to answer questions regarding the finding of a deficiency relative to CGH’s subcontracting strategy; and (5) failure to address CGH concerns regarding public comments of EIS stating that it would win the contract, and Agency’s subsequent hiring of an EIS employee. Protest at 1-3. The ODRA recommended that CGH’s Protest be denied in its entirety. CGH had failed to show that the decision to award the Contract to EIS lacked a rational basis or was otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. (Decision on Timeliness of Protest Ground Findings and Recommendation Order). |
||
| Docket 10-ODRA-00563 | Protest of GTSI Corporation Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-00024 | 10-ODRA-00563 | 01/13/2011 | DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION |
| 01/13/2011 | DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION | |||
| ODRA-10-565 | Protest of Systems Atlanta, Inc. Under Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-00462 | 10-ODRA-00530 | 11/23/2010 | This matter arises from a post-award bid protest ("Initial Protest") filed with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") on June 23, 2010 and Supplemental Protest on July 20, 2010 by Systems Atlanta, Inc. ("SAI"). SAI challenges the award of a contract ("Contract") to All Weather, Inc. ("AWI") by the FAA Program Office ("Program Office" or "Product Team") pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-00462 ("Solicitation"). The Contract is for the Information Display System Replacement ("IDSR") Program. The Information Display System ("IDS") is a local area network ("LAN") and a wide area network ("WAN"), which provides for the acquisition and dissemination of weather and operational data from National Airspace System ("NAS") and National Weather Service ("NWS") systems to Air Traffic Controllers ("ATC") and Managers at Terminal Radar Approach Control ("TRACON"), Air Traffic Control Towers ("ACT"), Department of Defense ("DoD") and other facilities. In the Initial Protest, SAI broadly challenges the award decision on multiple grounds, including: (1) the agency's authority to define its requirements; (2) the weighted numerical technical scores, (3) the evaluation of unlimited data rights, (4) discussions with offerors, (5) evaluation of past performance, (6) the agency's cost realism analysis, (7) the procurement of developmental software, (8) the technical evaluation of SAI's proposal, (9) unstated evaluation criteria, and (10) disparate treatment. In its Supplemental Protest, SAI challenges the award decision on additional grounds of disparate treatment and a flawed cost realism analysis. SAI asserts that it was prejudiced by the alleged actions and inactions of the Product Team in evaluating its proposal, and that the numerous alleged "flaws" in the procurement led to an improper best value determination. The ODRA recommends: (1) that those Protest grounds where the ODRA finds that the Product Team's evaluation and source selection decision lacks a rational basis be sustained; (2) those Protest grounds where SAI fails to either demonstrate that the Product Team's evaluation and source selection decision lacks a rational basis, or establish prejudice to SAI be denied; and (3) those Protest grounds identified herein as untimely be dismissed. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). |
| Protest of Systems Atlanta, Inc. Under Solicitation No. DTFAWA-09-R-00462 | 11/23/2010 | This matter arises from a post-award bid protest ("Initial Protest") filed with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") on June 23, 2010 and Supplemental Protest on July 20, 2010 by Systems Atlanta, Inc. ("SAI"). SAI challenges the award of a contract ("Contract") to All Weather, Inc. ("AWI") by the FAA Program Office ("Program Office" or "Product Team") pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-00462 ("Solicitation"). The Contract is for the Information Display System Replacement ("IDSR") Program. The Information Display System ("IDS") is a local area network ("LAN") and a wide area network ("WAN"), which provides for the acquisition and dissemination of weather and operational data from National Airspace System ("NAS") and National Weather Service ("NWS") systems to Air Traffic Controllers ("ATC") and Managers at Terminal Radar Approach Control ("TRACON"), Air Traffic Control Towers ("ACT"), Department of Defense ("DoD") and other facilities. In the Initial Protest, SAI broadly challenges the award decision on multiple grounds, including: (1) the agency's authority to define its requirements; (2) the weighted numerical technical scores, (3) the evaluation of unlimited data rights, (4) discussions with offerors, (5) evaluation of past performance, (6) the agency's cost realism analysis, (7) the procurement of developmental software, (8) the technical evaluation of SAI's proposal, (9) unstated evaluation criteria, and (10) disparate treatment. In its Supplemental Protest, SAI challenges the award decision on additional grounds of disparate treatment and a flawed cost realism analysis. SAI asserts that it was prejudiced by the alleged actions and inactions of the Product Team in evaluating its proposal, and that the numerous alleged "flaws" in the procurement led to an improper best value determination. The ODRA recommends: (1) that those Protest grounds where the ODRA finds that the Product Team's evaluation and source selection decision lacks a rational basis be sustained; (2) those Protest grounds where SAI fails to either demonstrate that the Product Team's evaluation and source selection decision lacks a rational basis, or establish prejudice to SAI be denied; and (3) those Protest grounds identified herein as untimely be dismissed. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). | ||
| ODRA-10-553 | Protest of Advanced Sciences & Technologies, LLC Under Solicitation No. DTFACT-09-R-00023 | 10-ODRA-00536 | 09/24/2010 |
Advanced Sciences & Technologies, LLC ("AS&T") filed a Protest with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") on July 23, 2010 ("Initial Protest") and a Supplemental Protest on August 9, 2010 ("Supplemental Protest"). AS&T challenged a contract award ("Contract") made to Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. ("Columbus") after a re-evaluation mandated by FAA Administrator in Order Number ODRA-10-541 ("Administrator's Order"). In sustaining a prior protest by Columbus, the Administrator directed the William J. Hughes Technical Center ("Center") to take the remedial action of re-evaluating the proposals of AS&T and Columbus. See Protest of Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc., 09-ODRA-00514 ("Columbus Protest"). In pertinent part, the Center was directed to reinstate the results of its original technical evaluation for AS&T for Factors 1, 3 and 4, and to re-evaluate Factor 2. The Center's re-evaluation resulted in a determination by the Center to award the Contract to Columbus and terminate AS&T's Contract for the convenience of the Government.
In the Initial Protest, AS&T alleged that the new cost/technical tradeoff analysis and award to Columbus lacks a rational basis and is arbitrary, capricious, constitutes an abuse of discretion and/or is not supported by substantial evidence with respect to its original technical evaluation of Factor 3 – Key Personnel as "Good." Initial Protest at 3. AS&T's Supplemental Protest further asserted that the Center's original scoring of Columbus' proposal as "Excellent" for Factor 1 – Program Management Plan, which considered as a subfactor employee recruitment/retention, was arbitrary, capricious and lacked a rational basis, given the quality of the employee benefits package offered by Columbus. Supplemental Protest at 3-4. AS&T requested as a remedy that its Protest be sustained and that the Contract be re-awarded to AS&T, or alternatively that a new solicitation should be issued clarifying all ambiguities regarding the "Key Personnel" requirements, and that a new evaluation and best value determination be conducted. Initial Protest at 31-32.
The ODRA recommended that AS&T's Initial Protest be denied and its Supplemental Protest be dismissed. With respect to AS&T's Initial Protest, the ODRA found that the Center's original technical evaluation of Factor 3 had a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence; and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. With respect to AS&T's Supplemental Protest, the ODRA found that AS&T's challenge against the Center's original technical evaluation of Columbus' proposal with respect to Factor 1, Program Management Plan, was untimely. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS |
| Protest of Advanced Sciences & Technologies, LLC Under Solicitation No. DTFACT-09-R-00023 | 09/24/2010 |
Advanced Sciences & Technologies, LLC ("AS&T") filed a Protest with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") on July 23, 2010 ("Initial Protest") and a Supplemental Protest on August 9, 2010 ("Supplemental Protest"). AS&T challenged a contract award ("Contract") made to Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. ("Columbus") after a re-evaluation mandated by FAA Administrator in Order Number ODRA-10-541 ("Administrator's Order"). In sustaining a prior protest by Columbus, the Administrator directed the William J. Hughes Technical Center ("Center") to take the remedial action of re-evaluating the proposals of AS&T and Columbus. See Protest of Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc., 09-ODRA-00514 ("Columbus Protest"). In pertinent part, the Center was directed to reinstate the results of its original technical evaluation for AS&T for Factors 1, 3 and 4, and to re-evaluate Factor 2. The Center's re-evaluation resulted in a determination by the Center to award the Contract to Columbus and terminate AS&T's Contract for the convenience of the Government.
In the Initial Protest, AS&T alleged that the new cost/technical tradeoff analysis and award to Columbus lacks a rational basis and is arbitrary, capricious, constitutes an abuse of discretion and/or is not supported by substantial evidence with respect to its original technical evaluation of Factor 3 – Key Personnel as "Good." Initial Protest at 3. AS&T's Supplemental Protest further asserted that the Center's original scoring of Columbus' proposal as "Excellent" for Factor 1 – Program Management Plan, which considered as a subfactor employee recruitment/retention, was arbitrary, capricious and lacked a rational basis, given the quality of the employee benefits package offered by Columbus. Supplemental Protest at 3-4. AS&T requested as a remedy that its Protest be sustained and that the Contract be re-awarded to AS&T, or alternatively that a new solicitation should be issued clarifying all ambiguities regarding the "Key Personnel" requirements, and that a new evaluation and best value determination be conducted. Initial Protest at 31-32.
The ODRA recommended that AS&T's Initial Protest be denied and its Supplemental Protest be dismissed. With respect to AS&T's Initial Protest, the ODRA found that the Center's original technical evaluation of Factor 3 had a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence; and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. With respect to AS&T's Supplemental Protest, the ODRA found that AS&T's challenge against the Center's original technical evaluation of Columbus' proposal with respect to Factor 1, Program Management Plan, was untimely. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS |
||
| ODRA-10-554 | Protest of Counter Trade Products, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitations DTFAWA-10-R-00024, -00025 and -00026 | 10-ODRA-00539 | 09/24/2010 | On August 9, 2010, Counter Trade Products, Inc. ("CTP" or "Protester") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA"). The Protest involves the acquisition of computer equipment, servers, storage systems, network devices, and other services in support of the FAA's Information Technology ("IT") enterprise architecture. Agency Response ("AR"), Tab 1, at C-2. CTP challenges the Contracting Officer's decision to reject CTP's proposals ("Proposals") on the grounds that they were received after the established deadline for the submission of offers. Protest at 1. CTP concedes that its Proposals were received by FAA contracting officials 24 minutes after the deadline. Id. However, CTP asserts that the delay was the direct result of "FAA security measures," and, therefore that the Proposals should have been accepted. Id. The ODRA finds that CTP has failed to satisfy its burden of proof that the late submission of its Proposals was the result of government action. The ODRA recommends that the Protest be denied in its entirety. (Findings and Recommendation). |
| Protest of Counter Trade Products, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitations DTFAWA-10-R-00024, -00025 and -00026 | 09/24/2010 | On August 9, 2010, Counter Trade Products, Inc. ("CTP" or "Protester") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA"). The Protest involves the acquisition of computer equipment, servers, storage systems, network devices, and other services in support of the FAA's Information Technology ("IT") enterprise architecture. Agency Response ("AR"), Tab 1, at C-2. CTP challenges the Contracting Officer's decision to reject CTP's proposals ("Proposals") on the grounds that they were received after the established deadline for the submission of offers. Protest at 1. CTP concedes that its Proposals were received by FAA contracting officials 24 minutes after the deadline. Id. However, CTP asserts that the delay was the direct result of "FAA security measures," and, therefore that the Proposals should have been accepted. Id. The ODRA finds that CTP has failed to satisfy its burden of proof that the late submission of its Proposals was the result of government action. The ODRA recommends that the Protest be denied in its entirety. (Findings and Recommendation). | ||
| << See prev 10 >> See next 10 << Top >> < New Search > | ||||
USA Banner
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.