A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Navy to halt execution of a $5-billion indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for global construction work awarded in July 2021 to six contractors after an unsuccessful bidder, SLS Federal Services, challenged the service for not following federal contracting rules that it claims hurt its competitiveness.

海军设施工程司令部“当未能要求或评估定价信息时，不正确地分析了价格合理性。”the ruling联邦索赔法院高级法院法官埃里克·布鲁格克（Eric Bruggink）于1月10日被封为印章后被释放。公司SLSCO Ltd.公司的投诉仍在密封下。

Under the contingency contract, units of contractors Jacobs, Aptim, CDM Smith, ECC, Gilbane Building Co. and Tutor Perini Corp. are eligible to bid on cost-plus-award-fee or fixed-price task orders that NAVFAC issues as needed.

该裁决说，SLS向美国政府责任局提出了抗议，声称其未包括在Navfac未能在评估中包括“价格合理性”并讨论其出价潜在缺陷的获奖者中。法官说，当该机构同意重新评估SLS出价时，抗议活动被驳回，但“在纠正措施通知通知后将近一年，” Navfac宣布，该奖项“将保持不变”。

该公司提出了第二次GAO竞标抗议活动，但随后选择将其案件提交联邦索赔法院。

“SLS complains that [NAVFAC] was incapable of evaluating price reasonableness because the agency never requested or considered any pricing information,” the court ruling said. “At its core, [the firm’s] broader argument amounts to a challenge to the solicitation’s structure. SLS argues that the solicitation did not request enough information for the agency to perform its promised price reasonableness analysis.”

Jacobs Project Management Co., which filed a motion supporting NAVFAC, said the SLS protest is flawed because the firm should have noticed the solicitation “defect” and challenged it before the competition concluded. None of the other contractors that received awards filed similar court motions.

According to Judge Bruggink, NAVFAC “improperly analyzed price reasonableness when it failed to request or evaluate pricing information” and violated federal procurement rules when it awarded the contracts without adequately justifying its decision not to discuss issues with SLS.

“Discussions ‘maximize the government’s ability to obtain the best value,” the ruling said. “The agency’s corrective action was unreasonable and failed to address the original impropriety.” He added: “Presumably, an agency’s price evaluation is harder with contingent or uncertain performance. But … difficult is different from impossible.”

Bruggink concluded that NAVFAC’s actions failed to allow SLS to possibly “revise aspects of its offer … that could have kept [it] in the competition.”

因此,法官否认NAVFAC和雅各布莫tions and “enjoined [the agency] from proceeding with performance of the contracts awarded.” Added Bruggink: “If the agency moves forward with the solicitation, it will do so in a manner consistent with this opinion.”

Robert J. Symon, the Washington, D.C.-based attorney for Jacobs, told ENR the firm had no comment in response to whether it would appeal the order.

A NAVFAC spokeswoman in its Norfolk, Va.-based command told ENR at press time that it could not comment on the ruling—or on how, or whether, the contract will be revised to include SLS or cancelled, citing still unclear guidance from the U.S. Justice Dept.

她还说，尚未根据合同授予选定的公司的任务订单。

Jimm Rich, a senior advisor at Washington-based federal policy consultant Dawson & Associates and a former contracting chief for three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers districts and for the $3-billion Pentagon renovation, told ENR that he does not see the court’s ruling as precedent setting, but it “reasserts unambiguously that source selection actions must fully comply with language” in federal procurement rules.

Rich said NAVFAC’s assertion that worldwide task orders were impractical to price is both wrong and easy to disprove. Not only did the court give examples of how other federal agencies had solved the problem, but the Corps did price such contracts all the time, he said.

“The use of hypothetical task orders that require a contractor to price a task order using the cost information it will submit with the proposal allows the government to compare prices submitted on an identical requirement and may be used to determine price reasonableness,” Rich said.

It also is not unusual to hold discussions on a $5-billion ID-IQ award, Rich said, supporting the court’s contention that they are generally held for federal contracts valued at more than $100 million, based on procurement guidance. The government can reserve the right not to hold discussions, but “It is not enough to say you do not have to enter discussion because regulations allow you that choice—you have to document and explain your decision as being in the best interests of all parties to include the taxpayer,” he said.

Rich speculated that NAVFAC contracting officers may have been responding to pressure to accelerate award of the contract.