Government Contracts Reasoning for Termination and Reprocurement Was Faulty
News
Monday, March 1, 2021

Reasoning for Termination and Reprocurement Was Faulty

By Government Contracts Editorial Staff

Finding the government failed to provide a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for its decision to terminate the protester’s award and reprocure translation and interpretation services, the Court of Federal Claims enjoined the corrective action because it was arbitrary and capricious. The request for quote provided required offerors to submit a current Federal Supply Schedule contract and price list “which verifies all required languages are included in the [General Service Administration] schedule.” After another offeror contested the protester’s award before the General Accountability Office, the contracting officer issued a stop work order for the protester’s blanket purchase agreement and canceled the RFQ. According to the corrective action memo, languages included in the statement of work but not listed on any of the offerors’ FSS contracts had to be competed separately and independently of the FSS, or all languages listed in the SOW needed to be procured under one solicitation using the procedures for full and open competition. The memo also stated the protester had not met the technical requirements prior to the RFQ’s closing date. The CO could not conclude from the protester’s line item for “all other languages” whether specific languages in the SOW were on the protester’s FSS contract.

Nonexistent Languages. However, many of the “languages” listed in the SOW did not exist—they referred to countries or archaic and uncommon languages. The government therefore “fail[ed] to consider a critical aspect of the problem” by canceling the protester’s award and reprocuring all of the languages listed in the SOW. The corrective action was also contradicted by the record related to evaluations and discussions. The technical management evaluation made clear the government did not find a deficiency for the “all other languages” catch-all in the protester’s FSS contract, and the government’s failure to hold discussions with the protester amounted to a functional acceptance of the “all other languages” line item in the protester’s FSS contract. (PGLS, LLC v. U.S., FedCl, 65 CCF ¶82,062)

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More