| FAA Order | Matter | Docket | Date Served | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ODRA-09-488 | Protests of Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Solicitations | 08-ODRA-00459 and 08-ODRA-00461 (Consolidated) | 01/30/2009 | Protests denied. Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. filed two bid protests ("Protests") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") asserting that two FAA Air Traffic Terminal support services solicitations were required to be set aside for small business. The ODRA issued the following six interlocutory decisions in this case: (Decision on Suspension), (Decision on Admission to Protective Order), (Decision on Reconsideration of Admission to Protective Order), (Decision on Motion to Compel), (Decision on Reconsideration of Motion to Compel), and (Decision on Motion to Dismiss). The ODRA found that the FAA Program Office complied with applicable law and AMS policy, which requires that reasonable opportunities be provided for small business participation in FAA contracts. The ODRA found that the Program Office followed the necessary steps to determine whether adequate competition would exist among small businesses for the work involved, and further supported its determination that such competition would not be available. Additionally, the Program Office took the step of setting aside a third solicitation strictly for small and economically disadvantaged small businesses and included within the solicitations an enhanced mandatory small business sub-contracting clause. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). |
| 01/30/2009 | Protests denied. Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. filed two bid protests ("Protests") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") asserting that two FAA Air Traffic Terminal support services solicitations were required to be set aside for small business. The ODRA issued the following six interlocutory decisions in this case: (Decision on Suspension), (Decision on Admission to Protective Order), (Decision on Reconsideration of Admission to Protective Order), (Decision on Motion to Compel), (Decision on Reconsideration of Motion to Compel), and (Decision on Motion to Dismiss). The ODRA found that the FAA Program Office complied with applicable law and AMS policy, which requires that reasonable opportunities be provided for small business participation in FAA contracts. The ODRA found that the Program Office followed the necessary steps to determine whether adequate competition would exist among small businesses for the work involved, and further supported its determination that such competition would not be available. Additionally, the Program Office took the step of setting aside a third solicitation strictly for small and economically disadvantaged small businesses and included within the solicitations an enhanced mandatory small business sub-contracting clause. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| 08-TSA-036 | Protest of Deloitte Consulting LLP Under Solicitation No. HSTS02-08-R-TTC133 | 08-TSA-036 | 01/16/2009 | Protest sustained. Deloitte Consulting LLP ("Deloitte") filed a protest with the ODRA, challenging a contract award by the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). The Solicitation involved a contract for implementation and business support services for the Secure Flight Program. The ODRA sustained the protest, finding that: (1) the TSA improperly deviated from the stated evaluation criteria in Section M, Factor 7 of the Solicitation; and (2) the deviation clearly prejudiced Deloitte. (ODRA Findings and Recommendation). |
| 01/16/2009 | Protest sustained. Deloitte Consulting LLP ("Deloitte") filed a protest with the ODRA, challenging a contract award by the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). The Solicitation involved a contract for implementation and business support services for the Secure Flight Program. The ODRA sustained the protest, finding that: (1) the TSA improperly deviated from the stated evaluation criteria in Section M, Factor 7 of the Solicitation; and (2) the deviation clearly prejudiced Deloitte. (ODRA Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-08-476 | Protest of Carmon Construction, Inc./GAVTEC, Inc. Pursuant to Contract No. DTFASO-05-C-00028 | 08-ODRA-00425 | 01/16/2009 | Claim denied. Carmon Construction, Inc./GAVTEC, Inc. ("Carmon") filed a Contract Dispute with the ODRA that arose under Contract awarded and administered by the FAA Southern Region. The Contract was for the construction of security system modifications at the Air Route Traffic Control Center in Miami, Florida. The Contract Dispute was comprised of two separate claims totaling $114,071.39. They consisted of: (1) a claim representing the difference between the bid amount "budgeted for the roof installation" and the actual cost of the metal roof; and (2) a claim for an alleged escalation in the costs of site work in connection with Hurricane Katrina. The ODRA found that Carmon failed to prove legal entitlement to the amounts claimed. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). |
| 01/16/2009 | Claim denied. Carmon Construction, Inc./GAVTEC, Inc. ("Carmon") filed a Contract Dispute with the ODRA that arose under Contract awarded and administered by the FAA Southern Region. The Contract was for the construction of security system modifications at the Air Route Traffic Control Center in Miami, Florida. The Contract Dispute was comprised of two separate claims totaling $114,071.39. They consisted of: (1) a claim representing the difference between the bid amount "budgeted for the roof installation" and the actual cost of the metal roof; and (2) a claim for an alleged escalation in the costs of site work in connection with Hurricane Katrina. The ODRA found that Carmon failed to prove legal entitlement to the amounts claimed. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-08-483 | Protest of Protest of Emerging Engineering Excellence Joint Venture Pursuant to Solicitation No. | 08-ODRA-00467 | 12/31/2008 | 12/31/2008 Protest denied. Emerging Engineering Excellence Joint Venture ("E3JV") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") challenging the modification of a Contract for NAS support services, contending that it should have been permitted to compete for the Contract. The Contract originally had been awarded through a competitive process. E3JV was one of the unsuccessful competitors. Subsequently, the DOT Inspector General investigated the Contract's payment structure and issued a Report concluding that the Agency was at risk for making an overpayment of the Contract's award fee. The Inspector General recommended that the Contract be converted from a cost-plus-award-fee contract to a cost-plus-fixed-fee type in order to address the problem. The Aeronautical Center Program Office complied and modified the Contract. The Protester contended that the conversion created a new contract and that there should have been a competition to determine who would be awarded the Contract. The ODRA concluded that the Center Program Office acted properly, and in conformance with the recommendation of the Inspector General in converting the Contract. The FAA Acquisition Management System did not require that a re-competition be conducted in lieu of the conversion, and the Center's actions had a rational basis and could not be said to have been arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (Order and Findings and Recommendation). |
| 12/31/2008 | 12/31/2008 Protest denied. Emerging Engineering Excellence Joint Venture ("E3JV") filed a bid protest ("Protest") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") challenging the modification of a Contract for NAS support services, contending that it should have been permitted to compete for the Contract. The Contract originally had been awarded through a competitive process. E3JV was one of the unsuccessful competitors. Subsequently, the DOT Inspector General investigated the Contract's payment structure and issued a Report concluding that the Agency was at risk for making an overpayment of the Contract's award fee. The Inspector General recommended that the Contract be converted from a cost-plus-award-fee contract to a cost-plus-fixed-fee type in order to address the problem. The Aeronautical Center Program Office complied and modified the Contract. The Protester contended that the conversion created a new contract and that there should have been a competition to determine who would be awarded the Contract. The ODRA concluded that the Center Program Office acted properly, and in conformance with the recommendation of the Inspector General in converting the Contract. The FAA Acquisition Management System did not require that a re-competition be conducted in lieu of the conversion, and the Center's actions had a rational basis and could not be said to have been arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (Order and Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| 08-ODRA-00466 | Contract Dispute of Astornet Technologies, Inc. | 08-ODRA-00466 | 12/22/2008 | Motion to Dismiss granted and denied in part. Astornet Technologies, Inc. ("Astornet") filed a contract dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") in connection with an alleged breach of an ADR settlement agreement. The ODRA concluded that a portion of contract dispute lacked a factual or legal basis and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to the remaining allegations that the Program Office acted in bad faith in its dealings with Astornet, the ODRA denied the Motion without prejudice. (Decision on Motion to Dismiss). |
| 12/22/2008 | Motion to Dismiss granted and denied in part. Astornet Technologies, Inc. ("Astornet") filed a contract dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") in connection with an alleged breach of an ADR settlement agreement. The ODRA concluded that a portion of contract dispute lacked a factual or legal basis and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to the remaining allegations that the Program Office acted in bad faith in its dealings with Astornet, the ODRA denied the Motion without prejudice. (Decision on Motion to Dismiss). | |||
| << 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.