Protests challenging the agency’s negative responsibility determination are denied, where the protester proposed a subcontractor to perform approximately 99 percent of the direct labor for two task orders to be performed in Afghanistan, but failed to disclose the subcontractor had been debarred by the Afghan government.
NCI Information Systems Inc. protested the Army’s determination that it was not responsible to perform required IT services in Afghanistan.
The agency issued solicitations for two separate, but similar, IT services task orders for performance in Afghanistan. In its proposals, NCI proposed an Afghan-owned company called Global Technology Ltd. as a major subcontractor and value-added partner. NCI proposed G-Tech would provide 99 percent of the direct labor for the two task orders.
After the agency awarded both task orders to NCI, it discovered and confirmed that G-Tech was not in good standing with the Afghan government. The agency rescinded its prior responsibility determination and found NCI not responsible to perform the work for these task orders. Specifically, the agency found G-Tech had been debarred by the Afghan goversnment for two years, and that neither NCI nor G-Tech had disclosed this status during the procurement process, which raised issues of integrity.
The agency also questioned whether G-Tech would be able to perform due to the debarment. While G-Tech successfully performed on prior contracts, the agency could not assume that the debarment was a non-issue, since neither contractor confirmed that the Afghan government would consent to allowing G-Tech to perform the work required by the task orders, which would require access to Afghan facilities and IT networks and the ability to obtain Afghan Security clearances.
Absent any indication NCI could resolve this issue with the Afghan government, the CO concluded the work could not be performed, as G-Tech had been proposed for 99 percent of the work. Accordingly, the CO determined that NCI was not responsible to perform the work under the two task orders.
In its protest, NCI argued that G-Tech’s debarment does not, and has not, prevented G-Tech from doing business with the U.S. or Afghan government during its debarment, and that it is unreasonable to assume that the debarment will affect G-Tech’s current ability to perform these task orders. NCI also complained that it was improper for the agency to reverse its previous findings that NCI was responsible.
In response, the Army noted that G-Tech was debarred for providing false authorization letters, which is a very serious issue that affects the integrity of the procurement process. The agency also noted that NCI offered no evidence challenging the validity of the debarment, nor assurances from the Afghan government that G-Tech would be allowed to perform.
GAO found the Army’s decision reasonable and within its broad discretion. To the extent NCI disagreed, GAO found its challenges amounted to mere disagreement with the agency’s reasonable judgment.
NCI Information Systems Inc. is represented by Daniel P. Graham, Tyler E. Robinson, and Caroline E. Colpoys of Vinson & Elkins LLP. IAP Worldwide Services Inc. is represented by J. Alex Ward, Lauren J. Horneffer, and Charles L. Capito, Morrison & Foerster LLP. The government is represented by Debra Talley and David A. Balaban, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
