No.05-1342C, INFORMATION SCIENCES CORP., Plaintiff, and GALLAGHER, HUDSON, HUDSON & HUNSBERGER, INC. (d/b/a Development InfoStructure or DEVIS), Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES

Keyword
区分
参考(Reference)
発行日付
2006/09/19
発行者
The United States Court of Federal Claims
原資料
PDF リンク切れ
参考資料
PDF

概要

On September 19, 2006, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order setting aside an award of a Federal Business Opportunities Contract (“FBO Contract”) to Symplicity Corporation (“Symplicity”), after determining that the General Services Administration (“GSA”) violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 15.306(c) and 15.308. See Info. Scis. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 70, 129 (2006) (“Info. Scis. I”). Specifically, the court held that GSA violated FAR 15.306(c), because the relevant Contracting Officer (“CO”) did not consider price when establishing the competitive range, as required in the Solicitation. Id. at 114-16 (citing AR 254-55 (RFP § L.10)) (“Offerors are cautioned to submit proposals on the most favorable basis as to price, delivery, or time of completion and other factors.”); AR 258 (RFP § M.2) (“Price proposals . . . will be evaluated.”); AR 263-64 (RFP § M.6) (“The Government will perform a price analysis.”); see also AR 2387, 2538. In addition, the court held that GSA violated FAR 15.308, because the Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) failed to exercise independent judgment and document that judgment in the Source Selection Decision. See Info. Scis. I, 73 Fed. Cl. at 118-20; see also id. at 120 (“In this case, the Administrative Record does not evidence that the SSA exercised independent judgment raising Symplicity’s rating from ‘Unacceptable’ to ‘Acceptable’ and ISC’s rating from ‘Marginal’ to ‘Acceptable.’”). The court also held that the Plaintiff (“ISC”) and Plaintiff-Intervenor (“DEVIS”) were prejudiced, because each had a “substantial chance” of being awarded the FBO Contract, but for those violations. Id. at 116-18, 121-22. Accordingly, the court ordered GSA to appoint a new SSA to review the prior proposals, pursuant to FAR and the terms of the Solicitation, and to select the offeror for award that represents the “best value.” Id. at 129.

On October 24, 2007, ISC filed a Complaint to protest the September 28, 2007 re-award of the FBO Contract to Symplicity, alleging that GSA again violated FAR and/or acted without a rational basis in making the award. On October 26, 2007, DEVIS intervened to challenge that award. On December 11, 2007, Symplicity also intervened and on January 3, 2008 filed a posthearing motion to support GSA’s September 28, 2007 re-award of the FBO Contract.

For the reasons discussed herein, the court has determined that ISC’s Motion For Judgment On The Administrative Record and DEVIS’s Motion For Judgment On The Administrative Record are granted, in part, by enjoining the September 28, 2007 re-award of FBO Contract No. GSOOT05NSC0005 to Symplicity.

(MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER)