1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts

GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.22.04

In Shields & Dean Concessions, Inc. (Feb. 23, 2004), GAO took jurisdiction over the protest of a concessions contract awarded by the National Parks Service ("NPS"), stating that, because the concession contract at issue involved the delivery of goods and services to the government, as well as certain groundskeeping and construction services, the contract was a "procurement" within the meaning of CICA, and, therefore, was within GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. Notwithstanding its reliance on CICA to assume jurisdiction, GAO noted that, pursuant to statute, for concession contracts NPS is not bound by the provisions of CICA and the FAR that govern the conduct of procurements, and GAO therefore reviewed the award decision to determine whether it was consistent with the specific statute and regulation governing NPS concession contract and the terms of the solicitation and otherwise reasonable, and sustained the protest.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...