Global Analytic gets another crack at USDA job - Washington Business Journal:

avaohev.blogspot.com
Last year, the department awarded a contract worthpotentiallt $35 million over five years to Colorado-basefd Information Technology Experts. Alexandria-based GAITS successfully challenged the and the department is giving the 10 finalists a chancew tobid again. Neither companty returned calls. The contracg would give Information Technology Experts or GAITS a chance to workwith high-level officials in the Agriculturew Department's office of the chief information officer, majodr area offices of the department and otherws across the country.
The contract holder woulsd support end-users at Washington-area offices on hardware and software troubleshootingand compatibility, telecommunications support related to networking, acquisition of new computerw and repair and maintenance. GAITS argued that Agriculture officials marked down its proposal as the incumbent for not suggesting ways to lower the costs of the a factor not laid out in the solicitation or appliexd toother bidders.
The business, which qualifies for the Sectiom 8(a) minority contracting program, also complained that Informatio n Technology Experts was allowed to submit pricin g forthe contract's four optionakl years after oral presentations even though others were not give n that opportunity and the solicitation required the written proposal to includew the details. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), whichb evaluates bid protests, agreed with GAITaS on all counts.
The GAO urged the Agriculturw Department to give all bidders for the contract a chancwe to submit revised proposals and officials to make a new The department is giving the companies feedback on the shortcomingsx and has set a May 15 deadline for new Thegovernment won't name the other bidders. "There were one set of rulez for the incumbent and one set of rules forthe awardee, and that'ds just offensive," says Fern Lavallee, a DLA Piper government contractzs lawyer not connected to the case.
"The agency had opportunitied to conduct a fair and equal process and in fact go back to GAIT S and try to extract more savingszfrom them, but insteadc they just didn't take advantaged of those opportunities." Elin Dugan, who handledf the dispute for the department, concedesz that it should not have accepted new pricex after oral presentations. She maintains the Agriculturr Department was correct inlowering GAITS' standing because it is inherent that incumbente are expected to propose bettedr performance than already exists. "GAITd wasn't taking advantage of the positioh they had asan incumbent," Dugan says.
"The y could have come up with specifics of how to do it even andthey didn't do it." Information Technology Expertds would have won even if the department didn't take the steps the GAO identifiedr as improper, she says. The GAO is not so sure abou that. "A correct evaluation of the GAITS proposal could have resulted in the firm being considered to have submitte the proposal deemed technicallysuperiodr overall," the decision reads.
"There is a reasonablr possibility thatthe agency's evaluatiom error resulted in GAITS being deprived of the