1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement

Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.17

In a decision released publicly on March 31, 2017, the Court of Federal Claims denied a protest challenging a competitive range determination that left AT&T, represented by C&M, as the last remaining contender to win a 25-year contract to build and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network. The network will consolidate public safety use of the radio spectrum and prioritize first responders in times of crisis, while granting AT&T claim over large amounts of unused spectrum, as well as $6.5 billion for construction costs. The Court held, among other things, that the relatively extensive exchanges between the offerors and the agency before the competitive range determination was made were “communications,” not “discussions,” under the FAR because the agency neither intended to accept, nor permitted, proposal revisions. The Court also held that the government reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal where it coupled unacceptable financial risk with a questionable business model.

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].”...