Government Contracts

American Apparel, Inc., along with Bluewater Defense, Inc. provides coats and other all-weather clothing to the United States Defense Logistics Agency under a government contract.  The Agency wanted to purchase additional apparel not specifically listed in the contract via a Request for Additional Items.  It awarded the add-on order to Bluewater Defense, Inc. based on price.  American Apparel complained that this was a new procurement necessitating new bids with which the Agency should consider non-price…

Two large food distributors interested in competing for a $9.3 million contract to supply food to military and civilian customers in Texas and New Mexico win their pre-award bid protest against the Army’s Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support.  They successfully argued that the DLA’s waiver of the general requirement that government contracts conform with customary commercial practices in the industry was applied irrationally.  The case is U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and Labatt Food Service, L.P. v.United States, 2011

In this post-award bid protest case, a contractor who offered the government a very low price on a government contract failed to win the award.  It complained that the Agency improperly used an inadequate Independent Government Cost Estimate (“ICGE”) to conclude that the contractor was not offering a realistic price.  The Court of Federal Claims held that the ICGE was adequate and dismissed the bid protest.  The case is D&S Consultants, Inc. v.United States,2011U.S.Claims LEXIS 2098

A government contractor wins its post-award protest where the agency failed to adequately document its “best value” analysis.  This is the latest of a string of recent successful bid protests wherein the government loses on the basis of poor documentation.  The case is Standard Communications, Inc. v.United Statesand CACI-ISS, Inc. and SAIC, No. 11-530 C (November 22, 2011). The Department of Veteran’s Affairs issued a Request for Proposals for its Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology (“T4”) Program. 

A disappointed government contractor lost its bid protest, and the Court of Federal Claims explained the law on responsibility and responsiveness in offers to requests for proposals (“RFP”). The case is Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States, 2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1710. Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. (“Nilson Van”) lost a government contract for the preparation, shipment, and storage of property belonging to Army personnel, to Ken Krause Company.  Nilson Van complained that Ken