Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Sure, I Got an Award, But I’m Mad Someone Else Did Too. Can I Protest? • Low Price, High Drama: Did the Navy Cut Corners on the Price Analysis? • Shadow AI in Government Contract Proposal Evaluations: Emerging Bid Protest Risks for Federal Contractors • Five Percent to Stay Quiet: How the New “Loser Pays” Rule Discourages Legitimate Procurement Challenges • Rule of Two supports small businesses in contracts ⚖️

When COs Collide: Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination Is Bound by Commanding Officer’s Decision on Base Access

Yandry_kw | Shutterstock

The RFP required offerors to be registered in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) so they could access a military base. The protester was registered in the JCCS, but the CO determined the protester was ineligible for base access. The protester complained, but GAO denied the protest. A commanding officer at the base had denied the protester access. Regardless of whether the protester was listed on the JCCS, the contracting officer's judgment was limited by the commanding officer's decision.

Jana Construction Contracting LTD Company, GAO B-423061; B-423062; B-423063
  • Registration in JCCS - The RFP sought design-build services in Iraq. The RFP required offerors to be registered in the Joint Contingency Contracting System. Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 required all potential awardees for contracts in Africa and the Middle East to have base access.
  • Protest - The protester challenged the rejection of its proposal. The protester contended the agency erroneously found it non-responsible as it was properly registered and active in the JCCS database. The agency explained that the contracting officer checked the registration in the JCCS database and found the protester had been determined ineligible for base access, mandating a non-responsibility determination.
  • Decision - GAO found the contracting officer's judgment was limited by the military command's decision to deny the protester access to military installations. The exact reason for denied base access was undisclosed for national security purposes. Nevertheless, commanding officers have wide discretion when deciding whom to exclude from a base. Thus, such matters were outside of the contracting officer's domain. Thus, GAO found the contracting officer's determination was reasonable.

The protester was represented by Bahman K. Abdullah. The intervenors were represented by Kiwie Tahir of Transportation of All Types of Cargoes, Customs Clearance Services and Logistics Services LTD Company; and Omar Sulaiman of Zana Group Company. The agency was represented by Parag J. Rawal, Megan O. Jorns, Susan Symanski, and William Wilcox of the Army. Suresh S. Boodram and Evan D. Wesser 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.