The protester argued the agency improperly transferred services previously performed by the protester. The main contention was that the agency's actions amounted to an improper sole-source award. The agency countered that the protester lacked standing. GAO sided with the agency and dismissed the protest.
Network Designs, Inc., GAO B-423525; B-423525.2
- Background - The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially awarded several Information Technology Support Services contracts, including one to the protester, Network Designs, Inc. (NDi), to support its Antitrust Division. NDi provided IT modernization services under a task order with a one-year base period and four option years. When DOJ opted not to exercise the third option year and transferred those services to Leidos, NDi protested. It claimed the abrupt transfer was essentially a sole-source award violating competition laws.
- Standing Issue - The agency asserted that only holders of relevant contracts can challenge modifications of task orders. NDi, not being an IDIQ (indefinite delivery indefinite quantity) contract holder under the Alliant 2 contract, could not argue that the modification exceeded the scope of the task order. GAO agreed and highlighted that the protester's argument was invalid since only qualified bidders can contest procurement matters connected to specific contracts.
The protester is represented by John M. Manfredonia, Esq., of Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC. The intervenor, Leidos, Inc., is represented by James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Robert C. Starling, Esq., of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The government is represented by Laura D. Mayberry, Esq., Gordon R. Jimison, Esq., and Nathan E. Mires, Esq., of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., participated in the decision.