Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Who Needs Privity? Subcontractor Survives Jurisdictional Challenge Through Prime Sponsorship of Its Claim • GAO Reaffirms that Proposals Without a Realistic Chance of Award Do Not Belong in the Competitive Range • Protests are Starting to Test the Limits of Procurement Speed • A Judge Ruled that SBA Mishandled the ATI Case. But the Company Remains Suspended. • Anthropic and Iran – the Government Contracting State of Play

GAO Says a Chinese-Owned Provider Presented a National Security Risk for a TNT Contract

andriano.cz | Shutterstock

The protester argued it was excluded as a viable source from a sole source award due to the incorrect premise that one of its providers was owned by the Chinese communist party. GAO denied the protest. The protester did not dispute that its provider was owned by a company controlled by the Chinese government. This created a reasonable concern of national security risks for this contract involving explosives.

Systecon North America, GAO B-423175; B-423175.3; B-423175.4
  • Protest - The protester challenged the sole-source award contract for the design, construction, and commissioning of a domestic trinitrotoluene (TNT) facility. The protester argued the agency erred in finding the protester did not demonstrate viable and proven technology to be a "capable source." It claimed the conclusion was premised on false information.
  • Chinese Company - The agency's Determination and Findings (D&F) concluded the protester's proposed technology was not viable because the protester's technology provider was owned by a Chinese company. The protester offered rebuttal to the agency's determination that its provider presented an unacceptable national security risk. Instead, it focused on challenging the agency's determination that the provider was was a "communist Chinese military company."
  • Decision - GAO found the agency's decision was reasonable and denied the protest. If the protester were to hold the contract, the Chinese government-owned provider would could have access to "the design, the control system logic, and the operations of the plant." This created a national security risk.

The protester was represented by Julia M. Holden Davis and Tadd C. Blair of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart. The intervenor was represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, and Brian E. Doll of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The agency was represented by Debra J. Talley, Wade L. Brown, Jessica L. Weiford, and Brian Tuftee of the Army. Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.