contract protest

Contract Award: $2B Antarctic Support Contract

December 13, 2012 | Contract Awards

Professional Overseas Contractors

NSF and the USAP have been anchoring the U.S. presence in Antarctica since 1956 through its active and influential scientific research program, supporting fundamental discovery research that can only be done there and studying the Antarctic and its interactions with the rest of the planet. The program goals include: understanding the region and how its ecosystems depend on the polar environment; understanding its effects on (and responses to) global processes such as climate, and using the region as a platform for fundamental research in every scientific discipline. Antarctica's remoteness and extreme climate make it a unique and natural laboratory environment.

Continue Reading ▼

Around this time last year KBR, CH2M Hill, and Lockheed Martin were the top 3 contractors considered for the National Science Foundation contract in Antarctica on the highest, driest, coldest, windiest, and emptiest place on Earth.

This contract required exceptional logistics and planning expertise. A few of the unique challenges include managing the world’s longest supply chain, building airfields on ice and snow, working in the world’s worst weather conditions, and managing remote field camps, ice-breaking research vessels, and the largest research stations and laboratories on the cold continent.

The contract was to operate and maintain the United States' facilities in Antarctica which supports scientific research activities being undertaken by the United States Antarctic Program.

On 22 December 2011, the initial announcement was made to the USAP that the $ 2 billion contracts had been awarded to the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Following the announcement CH2M Hill filed a protest the next day, and KBR didn't issue a statement on the matter. "CH2M Hill Antarctic Support, Inc. is disappointed with the result of the NSF's selection process for the Antarctic Support Contract," the company said in an official statement but Lockheed-Martin declined to comment on the protest. CH2M Hill protest was denied earlier this year April 2012 as reported by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GOA). See Bid Protest »

Brief History: Research Program in Antarctica

Since the late 1960s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has increasingly relied on a prime private contractor to provide science support, operations and maintenance, logistics support, and construction in the Antarctic.

Operation Deep Freeze, the beginning of America's current Antarctic research program, began in 1955-56 in preparation for the International Geophysical Year (IGY), and the support force at that time was the U. S. Navy. However, even then, it was recognized that private companies were better equipped to provide certain aspects of support. During the first summer at McMurdo, Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) had welders on-site constructing two fuel storage tanks a 250,000-gallon tank for aviation gasoline and a 100,000-gallon tank for diesel fuel.

As the original temporary IGY-era program evolved into the continuing research program (CARP/USARP/USAP) that it is today, the Navy remained the primary support organization except for direct assistance to scientists and their missions in the field.

Lockheed-Martin Antarctic Program

Lockheed Martin is a global security and information technology company that employs 120,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products, and services.

In 2011, Lockheed Martin was selected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the prime contractor for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The program enables universities, research institutions, and other nations’ programs to conduct valuable scientific research in the region.

Lockheed Martin is working with NSF to implement a cost-effective, streamlined infrastructure for managing elements such as work stations, medical facilities, communications, transportation, shipping, emergency response, housing, food services, science support, environmental protection, and research vessels, construction projects, and remote field camp support.

Lockheed Martin partners with other organizations to successfully operate and support the United States Antarctic Program, which deploys roughly 3,000 people a year to conduct research and maintain research stations and vessels. For information on these partner organizations, please click on one of the links below:

If you are looking for opportunities or more information about this program download this PDF. For program and HR inquiries, please contact: [email protected]

Pentagon Agree to Compile Annual Reports on Contracting Fraud

December 1, 2012 | Justice Abroad

The Senate recently agreed to make the Pentagon compile annual reports on contracting fraud. The provision by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was added to a Department of Defense authorization bill.

“This country has a $16 trillion national debt. It is unacceptable that the Department of Defense continues to lose vast sums of taxpayer money because of fraud perpetrated by major defense contractors. This has got to stop,” Sanders said.

Continue Reading ▼

Another Sanders amendment added to the bill today would make public a list of senior military officials who leave the government and land on the payrolls of defense contractors. The contractor fraud provision would make the Department of Defense identify firms that received contracts after they were previously sanctioned for defrauding the Pentagon.

Over the past decade, the Department of Defense paid more than $400 billion to contractors who had been previously sanctioned in cases involving $1 million or more in fraud, according to a 2011 Pentagon report. That study, the first of its kind, was required by a Sanders amendment to an earlier defense authorization bill.

Major contractors among the many examples of fraud cited in the report included:

Lockheed Martin. The nation’s largest defense contractor landed $200 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts even after paying $60.95 million in fraud judgments and settlements over the previous 10 years. In 2008, for example, Lockheed paid $10.5 million to settle charges that it submitted false invoices for a multi-billion dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program. The very next year, Lockheed received $30.2 billion in Pentagon contracts.

The Boeing Company It paid at least $644 million in fraud judgments and settlements while it received more than $21 billion in contracts in the last decade. In 2000, for example, Boeing agreed to pay $54 million to settle charges that it placed defective gears in more than 140 Chinook helicopters and then sold the helicopters to the Army.

Northrop Grumman Corp. Despite paying at least $410 million in fraud judgments and settlements, the nation’s No. 3 defense contractor was awarded more than $9 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in the last decade. In 2005, Northrop Grumman paid $62 million to settle charges that it concealed basic inventory problems. Despite the serious charges, Northrop Grumman received $12.7 billion in contracts the next year, a 16 percent increase over the year before.

Under a separate Sanders amendment, the Pentagon would have to shed light on defense contractors that hire retiring Pentagon brass to help them land lucrative government contracts.

A recent study by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Brave New Foundation found that 70 percent of recently-retired three-and-four star generals left the Pentagon for employment by major defense contractors. At least two of the former generals continued to serve on Defense Department advisory panels. The report did not find that any generals were breaking rules, but said that ethics codes are “riddled with loopholes” and suggested increased public scrutiny could prevent conflicts of interest.

EOD Technology contract protest dismissed

August 20, 2012 | Justice Abroad

EOD Technology, Inc., of Lenoir, Tennessee, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91B4L-12-R-0189 for security services in Afghanistan. EOD argues that the Army improperly determined that EOD was nonresponsible, and permitted the awardee, Olive Group, of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to begin performing the contract.

We dismiss the protest.

Continue Reading ▼

The RFP, issued on June 7, 2012, provided for award of a fixed-price contract for security services at Forward Operating Base Lindsey, Afghanistan, for a 7-month base period and two 3-month option periods. Protest at 5. Offerors were informed that award would be made to the offeror providing the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. Proposals were evaluated on a pass-fail basis for technical capability, pricing, eligibility requirements, and past performance. Id. at 6-7. As relevant here, under the eligibility requirements evaluation factor, offerors were required to be affirmatively determined to be responsible in accordance with the standards of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9 and the solicitation.

The Army received seven proposals, and in June awarded the contract to Olive Group. EOD received a written debriefing that informed the firm that, although EOD’s proposal was otherwise technically acceptable and offered the lowest price, it was determined to be not responsible. Id. at 10.

On July 5, EOD protested to our Office challenging the award to Olive Group and requesting that the Army suspend contract performance in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA). On July 13, the Army advised our Office that it would reevaluate EOD’s responsibility and eligibility for award, and that, if the reevaluation results in a determination that EOD is eligible for award, the Army would “proceed accordingly.” In light of the Army’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed EOD’s protest as academic on July 16.

On July 25, EOD learned that the Army had authorized Olive Group to begin transitioning activities for contract performance, and was informed that EOD should have received official notice that it had again been found nonresponsible. Protest at 11. On July 31, EOD again protested to our Office objecting to the nonresponsibility determination, as well as the Army’s implementation of the corrective action and authorization for Olive Group to perform the contract. On August 4, the Army requested that EOD respond to specific concerns raised about EOD’s responsibility. On August 14, EOD filed a supplemental protest, arguing that the agency improperly re-awarded the contract to Olive Group and/or authorized contract performance before completing its reevaluation of OED’s responsibility.

The Army requests that we dismiss EOD’s protest as premature, stating that the agency has not yet completed its reevaluation of EOD’s responsibility. With respect to Olive Group’s performance of the contract, the Army contends that the agency was not required to continue to suspend contract performance because the CICA stay expired when GAO dismissed its protest. The Army also explains that it began to transition the contract to Olive Group in order to avoid a lapse of services.

We agree with the Army that where, as here, the agency has not yet made a new finding concerning EOD’s responsibility, EOD’s protest of the agency’s nonresponsibility determination is premature. In the event that the Army concludes that EOD is nonresponsible, the protester may re-file its protest, subject to our timeliness rules.

With respect to EOD’s argument that FAR § 9.105-2(a) requires the Army to complete its determination of EOD’s responsibility before awarding the contract to Olive Group or authorizing performance, this section indeed requires that “[w]hen an offer on which an award would otherwise be made is rejected because the prospective contractor is found to be nonresponsible, the contracting officer shall make . . . a determination of responsibility, which shall state the basis for the determination.” Here, the contracting officer in fact found EOD to be nonresponsible prior to awarding the contract to Olive Group. Although the Army’s corrective action involves a reevaluation of EOD’s responsibility, this does not implicate the agency’s compliance with FAR § 9.105-2(a) prior to awarding the contract to Olive Group.

The protest is dismissed.

Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel

credit: http://www.gao.gov