| FAA Order | Matter | Docket | Date Served | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docket 10-ODRA-00542 | Protest of BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-09-R-SE2020 | 10-ODRA-00542 | 09/22/2010 |
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION DECISION AND ORDER ON CONSULTANT’S ADMISSION TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER |
| 09/22/2010 |
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION ON REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION DECISION AND ORDER ON CONSULTANT’S ADMISSION TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER |
|||
| ODRA-10-547 | Protest of Affiliated Movers of Oklahoma City, Inc Under Solicitation No. DTFAA-10-R-02786 | 10-ODRA-00526 | 07/20/2010 | Dismissed and denied in part. On April 7, 2010, Affiliated Movers of Oklahoma City, Inc. ("Affiliated") filed a post-award bid protest with the ODRA. The Protest challenged the award of a contract to another company for commercial office relocation services for the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center ("MMAC"). Affiliated's Protest challenged as unacceptable the MMAC's evaluation of its proposal, which, in pertinent part, involved special responsibility requirements. The ODRA found that the record did not substantiate Affiliated's allegation of improper evaluation by the MMAC. Rather, the record showed that the MMAC reasonably concluded that Affiliated did not demonstrate the required experience and therefore was unacceptable under the terms of the Solicitation and the evaluation plan. The ODRA recommended that the Affiliated Protest be dismissed in part and the remainder denied. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). |
| Protest of Affiliated Movers of Oklahoma City, Inc Under Solicitation No. DTFAA-10-R-02786 | 07/20/2010 | Dismissed and denied in part. On April 7, 2010, Affiliated Movers of Oklahoma City, Inc. ("Affiliated") filed a post-award bid protest with the ODRA. The Protest challenged the award of a contract to another company for commercial office relocation services for the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center ("MMAC"). Affiliated's Protest challenged as unacceptable the MMAC's evaluation of its proposal, which, in pertinent part, involved special responsibility requirements. The ODRA found that the record did not substantiate Affiliated's allegation of improper evaluation by the MMAC. Rather, the record showed that the MMAC reasonably concluded that Affiliated did not demonstrate the required experience and therefore was unacceptable under the terms of the Solicitation and the evaluation plan. The ODRA recommended that the Affiliated Protest be dismissed in part and the remainder denied. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). | ||
| ODRA-10-545 | Protest of Adsystech, Inc., Pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-07-R-00024 | 09-ODRA-00508 | 07/16/2010 | On December 9, 2009, Adsystech, Inc. ("Adsystech") filed a post-award bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA"). The Protest challenged the award of contract number DTFAWA-09-D-00056 to Jerry Thompson and Associates, Inc. ("JTA"). On February 8, 2010, Adsystech filed a Supplemental Protest ("Supp. Protest") based on materials provided by the FAA's Headquarters ("Product Team") as part of the Agency Response ("AR") to the Initial Protest. Collectively, the Protest and the Supplemental Protests are referenced as the "Protests. The Product Team to dismiss the Supplemental Protest on the ground that it failed to provide supporting documents as required by the ODRA Procedural Regulation. While the ODRA agreed that the regulations impose a duty on protesters to provide evidentiary materials with their protests, the ODRA denied the motion because the prejudice to the Product Team was mitigated through prior procedural orders. On the merits, the ODRA found that the record produced in the Agency Response failed to demonstrate rational bases for both phases of the two-part evaluation process. As acknowledged by the Product Team, significant portions of the evaluation documents were lost prior to debriefing of the Protester. Furthermore, the ODRA found that the Contracting Officer lacked authority to waived the mandatory terms found in AMS Clause 3.6.1-7, "Limitations on Subcontracting." The ODRA did not reach other grounds asserted in the Protests The ODRA recommended that a new competition be conducted by a new contracting officer and evaluation team. Upon award of the new contract, the current contract with JTA should be terminated for the convenience of the Government. (DRO Findings and Recommendation and Administrator's Order). The ODRA denied a request to reconsider this remedy. (Decision on Request for Reconsideration) |
| 07/16/2010 | On December 9, 2009, Adsystech, Inc. ("Adsystech") filed a post-award bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA"). The Protest challenged the award of contract number DTFAWA-09-D-00056 to Jerry Thompson and Associates, Inc. ("JTA"). On February 8, 2010, Adsystech filed a Supplemental Protest ("Supp. Protest") based on materials provided by the FAA's Headquarters ("Product Team") as part of the Agency Response ("AR") to the Initial Protest. Collectively, the Protest and the Supplemental Protests are referenced as the "Protests. The Product Team to dismiss the Supplemental Protest on the ground that it failed to provide supporting documents as required by the ODRA Procedural Regulation. While the ODRA agreed that the regulations impose a duty on protesters to provide evidentiary materials with their protests, the ODRA denied the motion because the prejudice to the Product Team was mitigated through prior procedural orders. On the merits, the ODRA found that the record produced in the Agency Response failed to demonstrate rational bases for both phases of the two-part evaluation process. As acknowledged by the Product Team, significant portions of the evaluation documents were lost prior to debriefing of the Protester. Furthermore, the ODRA found that the Contracting Officer lacked authority to waived the mandatory terms found in AMS Clause 3.6.1-7, "Limitations on Subcontracting." The ODRA did not reach other grounds asserted in the Protests The ODRA recommended that a new competition be conducted by a new contracting officer and evaluation team. Upon award of the new contract, the current contract with JTA should be terminated for the convenience of the Government. (DRO Findings and Recommendation and Administrator's Order). The ODRA denied a request to reconsider this remedy. (Decision on Request for Reconsideration) | |||
| ODRA-10-542 | Protest of Evolver, Inc. Pursuant to 09-ODRA-00495 and Final Order, 09-ODRA-509 | 10-ODRA-00523 | 06/04/2010 | On March 17, 2010, Evolver, Inc. ("Evolver") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") challenging a corrective action determination based on the direction of the Administrator pursuant to an earlier Protest docketed as 09-ODRA-00495 ("Initial Protest"). In the Initial Protest, the Administrator directed the William J. Hughes Technical Center ("Center") to implement the remedy recommended by the ODRA. The Center was directed to: (1) reevaluate both ECS's and Evolver's technical proposals under Evaluation Factor 2 Corporate Experience/ Past Performance in a manner consistent with these Findings and Recommendations; (2) request cost data, including to the extent necessary the information required by AMS Clause 3.6.2-15 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (April 1996), from Evolver and perform a cost analysis in a manner consistent with these Findings and Recommendations. The Center completed its corrective action on March 4, 2010, maintaining the award to ECS. Evolver challenged the Center's corrective action determination as irrational asserting that the Center: (1) improperly reevaluated Evolver's Past Performance/ Corporate Experience under Factor 2; (2) improperly reevaluated Evolver's proposed price; (3) deviated from the ODRA's directive for the reevaluation of Price by also reducing its score from "Good" to "Satisfactory" under Factor 1; (4) improperly evaluated Evolver's and ECS's proposals under Factor 1, Program Management Plan; and (5) failed to have meaningful discussion concerning Evolver's initial price evaluation. In an Addendum to the Contracting Officer's Corrective Action of March 4, 2010, the Center took voluntary corrective action with regard to the third ground and restored Evolver's Factor 1 score to "Good." After a review of the Protest grounds and the administrative record, the ODRA concluded that the corrective action taken by the Center pursuant to the contract in question was consistent with the direction of the Administrator and the ODRA's Findings and Recommendations, and was rationally based and supported in the record. The ODRA recommended and the Administrator issued a Final Order denying the Protest in its entirety. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). |
| Protest of Evolver, Inc. Pursuant to 09-ODRA-00495 and Final Order, 09-ODRA-509 | 06/04/2010 | On March 17, 2010, Evolver, Inc. ("Evolver") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") challenging a corrective action determination based on the direction of the Administrator pursuant to an earlier Protest docketed as 09-ODRA-00495 ("Initial Protest"). In the Initial Protest, the Administrator directed the William J. Hughes Technical Center ("Center") to implement the remedy recommended by the ODRA. The Center was directed to: (1) reevaluate both ECS's and Evolver's technical proposals under Evaluation Factor 2 Corporate Experience/ Past Performance in a manner consistent with these Findings and Recommendations; (2) request cost data, including to the extent necessary the information required by AMS Clause 3.6.2-15 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (April 1996), from Evolver and perform a cost analysis in a manner consistent with these Findings and Recommendations. The Center completed its corrective action on March 4, 2010, maintaining the award to ECS. Evolver challenged the Center's corrective action determination as irrational asserting that the Center: (1) improperly reevaluated Evolver's Past Performance/ Corporate Experience under Factor 2; (2) improperly reevaluated Evolver's proposed price; (3) deviated from the ODRA's directive for the reevaluation of Price by also reducing its score from "Good" to "Satisfactory" under Factor 1; (4) improperly evaluated Evolver's and ECS's proposals under Factor 1, Program Management Plan; and (5) failed to have meaningful discussion concerning Evolver's initial price evaluation. In an Addendum to the Contracting Officer's Corrective Action of March 4, 2010, the Center took voluntary corrective action with regard to the third ground and restored Evolver's Factor 1 score to "Good." After a review of the Protest grounds and the administrative record, the ODRA concluded that the corrective action taken by the Center pursuant to the contract in question was consistent with the direction of the Administrator and the ODRA's Findings and Recommendations, and was rationally based and supported in the record. The ODRA recommended and the Administrator issued a Final Order denying the Protest in its entirety. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). | ||
| ODRA-10-541 | Protest of Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. Under Solicitation No. DTFACT-09-R-00023 | 10-ODRA-00514 | 05/19/2010 |
Protest sustained in part. Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. ("Columbus") challenged the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center's ("Center") award of a contract to Advanced Science and Technologies, Inc. ("AS&T") for technical services in support of several areas of operation. Columbus alleged that the Center improperly conducted communications on technical aspects of AS&T's proposal and deviated from the standard evaluation criteria. More specifically, Columbus argued that: (1) the Center's communications with offerors were unnecessary, as Columbus was the clear winner at the initial stage of the evaluation; (2) the Center conducted disparate communications that amounted to technical leveling, giving AS&T an unfair competitive advantage; and (3) the Center erroneously evaluated the past performance of AS&T by giving significant credit to AS&T for work performed by a completely separate company. The ODRA rejected Columbus' assertion that the Center's communications with offerors regarding revised pricing proposals were arbitrary and capricious. However, the ODRA concluded that the Center erred in crediting AS&T with the work experience of a completely separate company when evaluating AS&T's Corporate Experience/Past Performance. This deviation from the established criteria may have reasonably resulted in prejudicial evaluation of Columbus and the irrational award of the contract to AS&T. The ODRA also found that the Center conducted improper technical discussion with AS&T in allowing it to address and revise non-price-related evaluation criteria. Under the circumstances, this revision constituted a substantial supplementation to AS&T's technical proposal and afforded AS&T an unfair competitive advantage in the evaluation process. The ODRA recommended that the Center reconsider its original evaluation and issue a new award recommendation in light of its findings. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION |
| Protest of Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. Under Solicitation No. DTFACT-09-R-00023 | 05/19/2010 |
Protest sustained in part. Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. ("Columbus") challenged the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center's ("Center") award of a contract to Advanced Science and Technologies, Inc. ("AS&T") for technical services in support of several areas of operation. Columbus alleged that the Center improperly conducted communications on technical aspects of AS&T's proposal and deviated from the standard evaluation criteria. More specifically, Columbus argued that: (1) the Center's communications with offerors were unnecessary, as Columbus was the clear winner at the initial stage of the evaluation; (2) the Center conducted disparate communications that amounted to technical leveling, giving AS&T an unfair competitive advantage; and (3) the Center erroneously evaluated the past performance of AS&T by giving significant credit to AS&T for work performed by a completely separate company. The ODRA rejected Columbus' assertion that the Center's communications with offerors regarding revised pricing proposals were arbitrary and capricious. However, the ODRA concluded that the Center erred in crediting AS&T with the work experience of a completely separate company when evaluating AS&T's Corporate Experience/Past Performance. This deviation from the established criteria may have reasonably resulted in prejudicial evaluation of Columbus and the irrational award of the contract to AS&T. The ODRA also found that the Center conducted improper technical discussion with AS&T in allowing it to address and revise non-price-related evaluation criteria. Under the circumstances, this revision constituted a substantial supplementation to AS&T's technical proposal and afforded AS&T an unfair competitive advantage in the evaluation process. The ODRA recommended that the Center reconsider its original evaluation and issue a new award recommendation in light of its findings. (Findings and Recommendation and Order). DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION |
||
| << 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.