| FAA Order | Matter | Docket | Date Served | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ODRA-06-376 | Protest of Integrity Janitorial Corporation Pursuant to Request for Quotes DTFASO-06-Q-00017 | 06-ODRA-00370 | 04/25/2006 | Protest denied. Integrity Janitorial Corporation ("Integrity") alleged that the FAA Southern Region ("Region") failed to follow the evaluation criteria set forth in its solicitations and improperly converted the competition from best value to low price. The region denied the allegations, and the ODRA found that the evaluation was conducted consistent with the terms of the solicitations and the award decision was supported by substantial evidence. The fact that the contracting officer considered price after evaluating the technical factors did not convert the competition from best value to "low price," as price must always be considered. The ODRA concluded that the Protestor's allegations were unsupported by the record and that Integrity failed to meet its burden of establishing that the Region's award decision lacked a rational basis, was arbitrary and capricious, or constituted an abuse of discretion. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). |
| 04/25/2006 | Protest denied. Integrity Janitorial Corporation ("Integrity") alleged that the FAA Southern Region ("Region") failed to follow the evaluation criteria set forth in its solicitations and improperly converted the competition from best value to low price. The region denied the allegations, and the ODRA found that the evaluation was conducted consistent with the terms of the solicitations and the award decision was supported by substantial evidence. The fact that the contracting officer considered price after evaluating the technical factors did not convert the competition from best value to "low price," as price must always be considered. The ODRA concluded that the Protestor's allegations were unsupported by the record and that Integrity failed to meet its burden of establishing that the Region's award decision lacked a rational basis, was arbitrary and capricious, or constituted an abuse of discretion. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-06-371 | Protest of Kinematica, Inc. Pursuant to Market Survey for Host Interface Device/National Airspace System Local Area Network Support | 05-ODRA-00361 | 02/27/2006 | Protest sustained in part. Kinematica, Inc., the sole respondent to a market survey, challenged the estimate made by the Host Interface Device/National Airspace System Local Area Network Integrated Service Team ("Program Office") valuing technical support services at $4 million, and the Program Office's determination that it could not proceed with a noncompetitive procurement from Kinematica because the contract was valued at more than $3 million. The ODRA found that although Kinematica disagreed with the Program Office's cost estimate, it failed to establish that the estimate of the contract value lacked a rational basis. The ODRA also found however, that the Program Office incorrectly interpreted Acquisition Management System ("AMS") Section 3.6.1.3.5, "Noncompetitive Awards to SEDB 8(a) vendors," believing that a cost estimate greater than $3 million meant it could not contract directly with Kinematica, a socially and economically disadvantaged business (SEDB). AMS 3.6.1.3.5 contemplates noncompetitive awards to SEDBs where the total value of the procurement is $5 million or below for contracts involving North American Industry Classification System ("NAICS") codes. One of the exceptions to the dollar value limitations of Section 3.6.1.3.5 allows awards above the dollar threshold on a noncompetitive basis when there is not a reasonable expectation that at least two SEDB sources will submit offers in the government's best interest in terms of quality, price and/or delivery. The Program Office was directed to: (1) consider whether proceeding with a noncompetitive procurement of the services form Kinematica is in the Agency's interest in accordance with AMS Policy and AMS section 3.6.1.3.5; (2) take appropriate action based on the outcome of its deliberation; and (3) report to the Administrator, through the ODRA, on the outcome of the mandated action. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). |
| 02/27/2006 | Protest sustained in part. Kinematica, Inc., the sole respondent to a market survey, challenged the estimate made by the Host Interface Device/National Airspace System Local Area Network Integrated Service Team ("Program Office") valuing technical support services at $4 million, and the Program Office's determination that it could not proceed with a noncompetitive procurement from Kinematica because the contract was valued at more than $3 million. The ODRA found that although Kinematica disagreed with the Program Office's cost estimate, it failed to establish that the estimate of the contract value lacked a rational basis. The ODRA also found however, that the Program Office incorrectly interpreted Acquisition Management System ("AMS") Section 3.6.1.3.5, "Noncompetitive Awards to SEDB 8(a) vendors," believing that a cost estimate greater than $3 million meant it could not contract directly with Kinematica, a socially and economically disadvantaged business (SEDB). AMS 3.6.1.3.5 contemplates noncompetitive awards to SEDBs where the total value of the procurement is $5 million or below for contracts involving North American Industry Classification System ("NAICS") codes. One of the exceptions to the dollar value limitations of Section 3.6.1.3.5 allows awards above the dollar threshold on a noncompetitive basis when there is not a reasonable expectation that at least two SEDB sources will submit offers in the government's best interest in terms of quality, price and/or delivery. The Program Office was directed to: (1) consider whether proceeding with a noncompetitive procurement of the services form Kinematica is in the Agency's interest in accordance with AMS Policy and AMS section 3.6.1.3.5; (2) take appropriate action based on the outcome of its deliberation; and (3) report to the Administrator, through the ODRA, on the outcome of the mandated action. (Order and Findings and Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-06-367 | Protest of Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC Pursuant to Request for Offers DTFAWA-05-R-00005 | 05-ODRA-00360 | 02/01/2006 | Protest Denied. Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC ("Johnson") filed a protest against the FAA Facility Security Risk Management Program Office's ("Program Office") procurement of electronic security system design and installation work" for several Air Route Traffic Control Center ("ARTCC") Security Upgrades. Johnson had provided this type of work for several years pursuant to its contract for Security Systems Integration ("SSI"), which expired on September 28, 2005. The Program Office intended to procure the electronic security system design and installation services from Jacobs Facilities, Inc., which currently holds a "National Design and Design/Build Services" ("NDDB") Contract that was awarded in 2001. Johnson's Protest argued that the required electronic security system design and installation work exceeded the scope of the current Jacobs NDDB Contract. The ODRA found that the contract interpretation urged by Johnson was inconsistent with the breadth of services that the Jacobs NDDB Contract contemplates. Moreover, the course of dealings of the parties supports the interpretation that the type of security work at issue here has been recognized by all parties as within the scope of the current Jacobs NDDB Contract. (Order and Dispute Resolution Officer Recommendation). |
| 02/01/2006 | Protest Denied. Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC ("Johnson") filed a protest against the FAA Facility Security Risk Management Program Office's ("Program Office") procurement of electronic security system design and installation work" for several Air Route Traffic Control Center ("ARTCC") Security Upgrades. Johnson had provided this type of work for several years pursuant to its contract for Security Systems Integration ("SSI"), which expired on September 28, 2005. The Program Office intended to procure the electronic security system design and installation services from Jacobs Facilities, Inc., which currently holds a "National Design and Design/Build Services" ("NDDB") Contract that was awarded in 2001. Johnson's Protest argued that the required electronic security system design and installation work exceeded the scope of the current Jacobs NDDB Contract. The ODRA found that the contract interpretation urged by Johnson was inconsistent with the breadth of services that the Jacobs NDDB Contract contemplates. Moreover, the course of dealings of the parties supports the interpretation that the type of security work at issue here has been recognized by all parties as within the scope of the current Jacobs NDDB Contract. (Order and Dispute Resolution Officer Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-05-363 | Contract Dispute of DCT Incorporated under Contract DTFA-02-01-D-01850 | 05-ODRA-00354 | 12/23/2005 | Claim granted. DCT Incorporated ("DCT") filed a contract dispute with the FAA Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") seeking a price adjustment in the amount of $115,365.60 under a contract to provide security guard services. The dispute involved reimbursement under a settlement agreement with the FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center ("Center"). During the course of the adjudication, the ODRA denied the Center's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that even though the dispute involved a DOL wage rate determination, the ODRA had subject matter jurisdiction, because the dispute presented questions of contract interpretation that did not require particular DOL expertise (Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss). As for the merits of the dispute, the ODRA found that the subject DOL Wage Rate Determination, which was incorporated into the contract by modification, also incorporated a collective bargaining agreement provision that required compensation to employees of up to 15 minutes of travel time to and from guard posts. As a result, DCT was obligated under the terms of its contract with the Center to compensate its employees for up to 15 minutes of the identified travel time and was entitled to reimbursement of such costs under the express terms of the Price Adjustment Clause of the contract. (Order and Dispute Resolution Officer Recommendation). |
| 12/23/2005 | Claim granted. DCT Incorporated ("DCT") filed a contract dispute with the FAA Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition ("ODRA") seeking a price adjustment in the amount of $115,365.60 under a contract to provide security guard services. The dispute involved reimbursement under a settlement agreement with the FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center ("Center"). During the course of the adjudication, the ODRA denied the Center's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that even though the dispute involved a DOL wage rate determination, the ODRA had subject matter jurisdiction, because the dispute presented questions of contract interpretation that did not require particular DOL expertise (Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss). As for the merits of the dispute, the ODRA found that the subject DOL Wage Rate Determination, which was incorporated into the contract by modification, also incorporated a collective bargaining agreement provision that required compensation to employees of up to 15 minutes of travel time to and from guard posts. As a result, DCT was obligated under the terms of its contract with the Center to compensate its employees for up to 15 minutes of the identified travel time and was entitled to reimbursement of such costs under the express terms of the Price Adjustment Clause of the contract. (Order and Dispute Resolution Officer Recommendation). | |||
| ODRA-05-359 | Contract Dispute of Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc. Pursuant to Lease No. DTSA20-03-R-00528 | 05-TSA-018 | 10/21/2005 | Dispute settled, withdrawn and dismissed. |
| 10/21/2005 | Dispute settled, withdrawn and dismissed. | |||
| << 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.