The General Services Administration has lost the latest round in the ongoing saga of revamping the FedBizOpps.gov Web portal.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge Susan Braden issued a decision earlier this week that denied the government’s request for consideration in three areas of Braden’s September 2006 ruling to appoint a new source selection authority (SSA) and re-evaluate the bids.
The continued delay has attracted the attention of one House member. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sent a letter to GSA Administrator Lurita Doan Feb. 8 asking seven questions and expressing his concern over the program’s direction.
“I am concerned that FedBizOpps system is being put at risk,” Van Hollen’s letter stated. “Although I am concerned with GSA’s repeated inability to follow standard procurement regulations as well as its willingness to continue to litigate rather than follow the court’s order, I am most concerned about the impact that this three-year delay has had on the operations of FedBizOpps as well as the effect of budget cuts forced on the contractor currently operating FedBizOpps.”
In September, Braden concluded that GSA incorrectly calculated the bid from the winning vendor, Symplicity Corp. of Arlington, Va. GSA awarded Symplicity a $17.4 million contract that includes three base years and five one-year options in December after reevaluating bids. That followed a first protest by Development InfoStructure (Devis) Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Information Sciences Corp. of Silver Spring, Md.
ISC is a subcontractor to SAIC, which holds the prime contract to run FedBizOpps. When GSA recompeted the contract, it did so as a small business set-aside, and ISC bid as a prime contractor.
ISC protested the second award to Symplicity to the U.S. Federal Claims Court in January 2006.
This procurement has been ongoing since March 2004 when GSA first issued a request for proposals.
“We are pleased with the decision, and we are hopeful GSA will follow the judge’s order and appoint new SSA who is capable of doing the evaluation independent of past process,” said William Shook, ISC’s attorney, and a partner in the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. “We are back at the point where we were in September 2004, where we have to get a competitive range determination.”
Digg
De.licio.us
Slashdot
Technorati
