• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Active Deployment Systems, Inc., B-404875, May 25, 2011

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • June 22, 2011
  • Suspension and Debarment

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition: Request granted.

Keywords: Debarred or Suspended Contractors

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Agencies may not award contracts to contractors that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, nor may they award contracts to firms that are affiliated with firms that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Active Deployment Systems, Inc. (ADS) protests the award of a contract, by the Department of the Army, under a request for proposals (RFP), for the lease of shower and sink trailers.

The RFP sought proposals to provide shower and sink trailers. The competition was set aside for small business firms. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.

The Army received proposals from five offerors, including ADS and the eventual awardee. The agency concluded that the awardee’s proposal was technically acceptable and offered the lowest price. As relevant here, the contracting officer (CO) reviewed the following sources of information when evaluating the awardee’s responsibility: the Central Contractor Registry; the awardee’s entries in the Online Representations and Certifications Application; the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS); and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System. The CO also consulted another CO who had prior experience with the awardee. Based on her review, the CO concluded that the awardee was not debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, and was a responsible contractor.

The Army notified ADS of the award and ADS contacted the CO and expressed its belief that the awardee intended to subcontract with firms that were proposed for debarment. In response to ADS’s contentions, the CO contacted the awardee and asked the awardee to identify the subcontractors it intended to use in performing the contract. The CO determined that none of the firms identified by the awardee were on the EPLS, and advised ADS that the agency intended to proceed with the award.

ADS argues that the Army failed to reasonably evaluate the awardee’s responsibility because, the protester contends, the awardee intends to subcontract with, and is otherwise affiliated with, three firms proposed for debarment. GAO states that agencies may not award contracts to contractors that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, nor may they award contracts to firms that are affiliated with firms that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment. Additionally, agencies may not consent to a subcontract with a firm that is debarred or proposed for debarment, unless the agency head states in writing the compelling reasons for this approval action. GAO views an agency’s determination of whether an offeror is affiliated with or is subcontracting to, a firm that is debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment to be matters of offeror responsibility. As a general matter, GAO does not review a CO’s affirmative determination of responsibility. GAO will, however, consider a challenge to a CO’s affirmative determination of responsibility where it is alleged that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met, or where the protester identifies evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching the responsibility determination, the CO unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated statute or regulation.

Here, GAO concludes that the protest is within its jurisdiction to consider because ADS has argued that the CO unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information regarding the awardee’s relationships with firms proposed for debarment.

In response to allegations raised by ADS prior to filing its protest with GAO, the CO obtained from the awardee a list of all of its proposed subcontractors, and was able to verify that none of them were debarred or proposed for debarment. While the awardee acknowledged that it had planned to purchase certain assets to be used in performing this contract from a contractor–which was proposed for debarment–during that firm’s bankruptcy proceeding, the CO reasonably concluded that the awardee would not be subcontracting with a debarred firm to perform this contract. Thus, the protest ground provides no basis to challenge the agency’s determination that the awardee was responsible.

ADS also argues that the awardee is affiliated with the three firms proposed for debarment, and is therefore ineligible for award. GAO states that the Small Business Administration (SBA) has determined that the awardee is not affiliated with these firms, in connection with a size-status protest. GAO states that because the analysis of a firm’s affiliation for purposes of debarment under FAR subpart 9.4 addresses the same considerations as the SBA’s affiliation analysis under the SBA’s size status regulations, GAO thinks that the SBA’s ruling here supports the agency’s affirmative responsibility determination, even though the CO did not review this matter at the time of award. In this regard, the FAR states that firms are affiliates of each other for purposes of debarment if “directly or indirectly, (1) either one controls or has the power to control the other, or (2) a third party controls or has the power to control both.” Similarly, the SBA regulations concerning affiliation for purposes of determining a firm’s size state that firms are affiliates “when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” Indicia of control common to both regulatory provisions, and addressed by the SBA in its decision, include common management, ownership, key employees. Thus, the record provides no basis to find that the awardee was affiliated with firms that were proposed for debarment. The protest is denied.

Share

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411