Why the Navy’s Decision Held
GAO said the omission wasn’t “harmless.” Without the workbook, evaluators couldn’t verify certain fees listed in the narrative. The watchdog rejected C4CJV’s assertion that the Navy could have pieced things together on its own.
“To the extent the protester argues that its omission of the cost workbook was harmless, the record directly contradicts that assertion,” GAO stated.
That deficiency alone barred C4CJV from being considered for award, regardless of its other protest claims.
The Awarded Winner
Instead, the Navy moved forward with Maryland-based PCG-SMX JV LLC, the rival bidder. The contract, structured as an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity agreement, includes a five-year base period and factors in technical expertise, past performance, and cost.
The Legal Players
-
C4CJV is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman PA.
-
The Navy is represented by Hillary A. H. Spadaccini, Jonathan M. Warren and Michael T. Patterson.
-
PCG-SMX JV LLC is represented by Jonathan T. Williams and a team from Piliero Mazza PLLC.
GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail prepared the decision. Representatives for the parties did not respond to comment requests Friday.
