Updated March 26, 2019
“On June 20, 2016, the GSA issued solicitation QTA0016GBA0002 to procure information technology services for the government. Administrative R. (“AR”) 4, 270. Specifically, the GSA sought proposals for the Alliant 2 Small Business Governmentwide Acquisition Contract, a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract…”
“… When the GSA posted an award notice that included a list of the eighty-one awardees,5 Citizant learned that it was not selected for an award. Id. at 480-88. Citizant promptly requested a debriefing. Id. at 11201.3. In a March 9, 2018 debriefing letter, the CO explained that Citizant’s score placed it below the award cutoff; it received the [. . .] highest score in a solicitation that resulted in eighty-one awardees. Id. at 11201.4-.6. After it received the debriefing letter, Citizant filed a protest with the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). Id. at 11115. On May 22, 2018, the GAO dismissed the protest because protests concerning the same procurement were pending before this court. Id. at 11243. 2. Relevant Offerors Citizant’s protest concerns purported errors that the CO made when evaluating proposals from offerors who were subsequently selected as awardees. These offerors can be separated into two groups based on whether Citizant argues that they (1) failed to substantiate their CAS points or (2) submitted inadequate pricing information. 6 Some offerors are part of both groups…”
“… Absent those errors, Citizant alleges that it—as the [. . .] unsuccessful offeror—would have received a contract because the aforementioned awardees would be ineligible for a contract. Citizant requests that the court (1) direct the GSA to establish a new list of awardees after correcting the errors the CO made in the initial evaluation…”
“… Citizant protests the CO’s decision to award contracts to various offerors. Specifically, Citizant argues that the CO erred when he (1) credited various offerors with the points they claimed for possessing an acceptable CAS, (2) found other offerors proposed reasonable pricing, (3) deemed two offerors responsible, and (4) awarded contracts to some offerors despite not identifying them as being eligible for an award in the SSD. Citizant further argues that each of those errors was prejudicial…”
“… Citizant seeks an injunction requiring the GSA to (1) correct the errors noted above, (2) re-sort the proposals in accordance with the solicitation,…“
“… After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefing, and their representations, 24 the court concludes that Citizant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the factors noted above weigh in favor of an injunction. Thus, the court grants Citizant’s request for a permanent injunction”
“… Specifically, the court ENJOINS the GSA from proceeding with the current awardee list and DIRECTS the GSA to reevaluate the proposals in a manner that redresses the errors addressed above.”
G2X TAKE: Citing this challenger’s substantial chance of receiving an award because GSA will be ‘required to reevaluate a significant number of awardees’ proposals’ to remedy the errors, the Government agreed with many of the issues raised in this formal protest.
The approach taken by Citizant was to challenge multiple errors made by GSA with regard to the evaluation of the announced awardees, the exact number of which were at least partially redacted. Apparent awardees and those who scored close to the cutoff will be paying close attention as it appears as if there could be a fairly significant set of changes as GSA reevaluates the proposals. A new set of of protests is likely to follow any action, so any hope of seeing FY19 dollars flow through this vehicle are fading fast.
The initial list of the 81 awardees on $15B Alliant 2 SB GWAC can be found here.
Updated January 12, 2019
G2X TAKE: The lone known protest, a challenge put forth by *Concept Solutions, has been dismissed by GAO. Note: a dismissal by GAO does not necessarily mean the issue is resolved and in many cases can simply indicate that the agency has agreed to take some proactive steps to remedy issues raised as part of the protest. More will be shared here as it is made available. Have insight you are willing to share? Comment below or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Updated December 12, 2018
G2X TAKE: After seeing multiple post-award protests denied early this Fall, GSA is dealing with a new challenge as a fresh protest has been filed with GAO.
Details as to the grounds for the latest protest by *Concept Solutions have not been publicly released at this time. More information will be shared here when made available.
This is the third action *Concept Solutions has filed related to this important IDIQ, with both prior protests being dismissed. This is the only known active protest on the docket with GAO. A listed due date for a decision by GAO is no later than March 20, 2019.
- Correction – G2X had inadvertently miskeyed the company name in the second sentence. The Protestor is Concept Solutions.
Added September 20, 2018
Protest 1 – “In this postaward bid protest, plaintiff Dynanet Corporation (“Dynanet”) alleges that the contracting officer (“CO”) improperly evaluated its proposal in connection with a solicitation issued by the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) for information technology services. The crux of Dynanet’s protest is that the CO erred by deducting points related to Dynanet’s cost accounting system (“CAS”) without contacting the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) to verify whether Dynanet had an acceptable CAS. The court is now presented with Dynanet’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, defendant’s motion to strike exhibits attached to Dynanet’s motion, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. For the reasons explained below, the court grants defendant’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and denies the other motions…” Read the full 12-page decision document here.
Protest 2 – “In this postaward bid protest, plaintiff Technical & Management Resources, Inc. (“TMR”) alleges that the contracting officer (“CO”) improperly evaluated its proposal in connection with a solicitation issued by the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) for information technology services. In its protest, TMR focuses on whether the CO properly concluded that it did not propose fair and reasonable pricing. The court is now presented with TMR’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, TMR’s motion to supplement the administrative record, defendant’s motion to dismiss, and defendant’s crossmotion for judgment on the administrative record. For the reasons explained below, the court grants defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record and denies the remaining motions…“ Read the full 12-page decision document here.
Protest 3 – “In this postaward bid protest, plaintiff Criterion Systems, Inc. (“Criterion”) alleges that the contracting officer (“CO”) improperly evaluated its proposal in connection with a solicitation issued by the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) for information technology services. In its protest, Criterion focuses on whether the CO was obligated to take remedial steps to address its failure to include the appropriate documentation verifying the points it claimed for having an acceptable cost accounting system (“CAS”). Specifically, Criterion argues that the CO failed to abide by the terms of the solicitation and also abused his discretion by neither seeking clarification regarding the missing information nor waiving the error as an informality and minor irregularity. The court is now presented with Criterion’s motion for judgment on the administrative record as well as defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. For the reasons explained below, the court denies Criterion’s motion and grants defendant’s cross-motion.” Read the full 11-page decision document here.
Protest 4 – “In separate, but consolidated, postaward bid protests, plaintiffs RX Joint Venture, LLC (“RXJV”) and TISTA Science and Technology Corporation (“TISTA”) allege that the contracting officer (“CO”) improperly evaluated their respective proposals in connection with a solicitation issued by the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) for information technology services. In their protests, RXJV and TISTA both argue that the CO erred by selecting awardees without contacting plaintiffs concerning information that they failed to submit to the GSA. TISTA also argues that it should prevail on its protest because the GSA lost the documents that the CO concluded were never submitted. The court is now presented with RXJV’s and TISTA’s separate motions for judgment on the administrative record as well as defendant’s cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. For the reasons explained below, the court (1) grants defendant’s cross-motions and (2) denies RXJV’s and TISTA’s motions.” Read the full 17-page decision document here.
G2X TAKE: Arguments made by five separate companies, TMR, Dynanet, Criterion, TISTA, and RXJV, challenging decisions made by GSA in relation to this important GWAC have been denied. The four recent protest decision documents released publicly by the Court of Federal Claims this week are included above. GSA moves a step closer to getting this 10-year vehicle finalized once and for all.