|
Our NewsWire -> GAO Bid Protests
CG Decisions
News stories on federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel on complaints by companies against other companies and federal agencies. Available by state.
GAO General Counsel Denies Snap's Bid Protest Against Labor Department
by ELIZA VILLARINO
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Government Accountability Office General Counsel has sided with the Labor Department in its decision to reject the proposal of Snap Inc., Chantilly, Va., for a contract to provide automated data processing and related services at the Office of Unemployment Insurance in the department's Employment Training Administration.
The Labor Department made the decision as Snap failed to observe the terms of the request for proposals. The solicitation asked offerors to submit redacted proposals stripped of all identifying information of companies and their subcontractors, including
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The Government Accountability Office General Counsel has sided with the Labor Department in its decision to reject the proposal of Snap Inc., Chantilly, Va., for a contract to provide automated data processing and related services at the Office of Unemployment Insurance in the department's Employment Training Administration.
The Labor Department made the decision as Snap failed to observe the terms of the request for proposals. The solicitation asked offerors to submit redacted proposals stripped of all identifying information of companies and their subcontractors, includingcorporate names and logos, as well as "all references to key personnel's names." Snap's redacted proposals, however, mentioned that the company was the "incumbent" contractor and intended to use the "incumbent team" to perform the contract.
Snap believed the agency made a wrong interpretation of the solicitation, insisting that the term "identifying information" only refers to the name, logo or photos associated with the company and names of proposed personnel. It said that if the Labor Department wanted a more expansive definition, it should have stated "and all other identifying information" in the request for proposal.
According to GAO Acting General Counsel Lynn H. Gibson, the department was reasonable in its interpretation of the solicitation.
"While sections L.6 and L.6.c identified specific types of information to be redacted, nothing in the RFP indicated that the identifying information listed in these sections was intended to be exclusive, so as to relax the unequivocal general prohibition against identifying information set forth in section L.6.d(i)," she said. "Absent such an express exception to the unequivocal requirement that all identifying information be redacted, there was no reasonable basis for SNAP to ignore section L.6.d(i) and interpret the requirement more loosely."
Companies
Snap Inc., 4080 Lafayette Center Dr Ste 340, Chantilly, VA 20151-1252, 703/393-6400, http://www.snapinc.net
ktrippel@snapinc.net
***
Eliza Villarino is a Targeted News Service writer based in Pasig City, the Philippines.
Air Force's Decision on Wildlife Control Services Contract Upheld
by ELIZA VILLARINO
WASHINGTON, July 19 -- The Government Accountability Office agreed with the ruling of the Department of the Air Force to award a contract for wildlife control services at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to Birdstrike Control Program, Willis, Texas.
In its request for proposals, the Air Force indicated that the contract will go to the company with the lowest-priced proposal and whose past performance would earn a substantial confidence rating. Birdstrike's proposal reflected both.
Falcon Environmental Services Inc., Plattsburgh, N.Y., challenged the decision, asserting that Birdstrike did
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 19 -- The Government Accountability Office agreed with the ruling of the Department of the Air Force to award a contract for wildlife control services at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to Birdstrike Control Program, Willis, Texas.
In its request for proposals, the Air Force indicated that the contract will go to the company with the lowest-priced proposal and whose past performance would earn a substantial confidence rating. Birdstrike's proposal reflected both.
Falcon Environmental Services Inc., Plattsburgh, N.Y., challenged the decision, asserting that Birdstrike didnot provide depredation services as required by the solicitation. The Air Force contended that the solicitation allows the contract to opt for an appropriate wildlife control method including depredation.
GAO Acting General Counsel Lynn H. Gibson supported the Air Force's opinion.
"Here, the solicitation, read as a whole, reasonably informed offerors that the contractor would be allowed to choose the appropriate method to control wildlife at [Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst]," Gibson said. "Reasonably read, the solicitation advised that, in some circumstances, the appropriate control method might be depredation."
Falcon also questioned why Birdstrike won the competition when the latter did not provide specific information about its services. For the solicitation, Birdstrike submitted a "client guide" that generally described its offered services.
According to Gibson, the request for proposal did not require submission of technical proposals, similar to what Falcon did. She further noted that the lack of information on depredation in the guide did not necessarily mean Birdstrike will not employ such service, if required.
Companies
Birdstrike Control Program, 16051 E FM 1097, Willis, TX 77378, 936/856-3745, http://www.birdstrikecontrol.com/
bcp@birdstrikecontrol.com
Falcon Environmental Services Inc., 186 US Oval, Plattsburgh, NY 12903, 613/525-9998, http://www.falconenvironmental.com/
***
Eliza Villarino is a Targeted News Service writer based in Pasig City, the Philippines.
More Recent Headlines
|
|
|
|