Nightforce scores DoD contract

[CAMagnussen]

On the subject of military optics contracts, evidently Leupold filed a protest against SIG (and won) on a recent award:

"Leupold Stevens, Inc., of Beaverton, Oregon, protests a modification to a contract held by Sig Sauer, Inc., of Newington, New Hampshire, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Navy Surface Warfare Center, for purchase of the second focal plane squad variable powered scope (S-VPS).1 The challenged modification is for the purchase and installation of the Horus T-8 glass-etched internal reticle in the Sig Sauer S-VPS. Leupold argues that the modification is outside the scope of Sig Sauer’s awarded contract.

We sustain the protest."

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/702944.pdf

What happens when a protest is sustained?

[Slater]

From GAO's website:

"GAO will either dismiss, deny, or sustain a protest. GAO generally sustains protests where it determines that the contracting agency violated procurement statutes or regulations, unless it concludes that the violation did not prejudice the protester. Where a protest is sustained, GAO will recommend appropriate corrective action. In fashioning its recommendation, GAO will take into consideration the circumstances of the procurement, such as the agency's stated need for the goods or services at issue, the extent to which performance has been completed (in post-award protests where performance has not been stayed), and similar factors. In appropriate circumstances, GAO will recommend that the agency terminate an improper award or, where this is not feasible, that the agency not exercise any renewal options in the improperly awarded contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(a), (b).

If the protest is sustained, GAO generally will recommend that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees and consultant and expert witness fees. Occasionally, where there is no other relief available, GAO will recommend that the protester also be reimbursed the costs of preparing its bid or proposal. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)."

Whether a GAO recommendation is legally binding, I don't know. Not sure if the Navy could just ignore the GAO ruling and proceed with their award to SIG.

[CAMagnussen]

thanks

[sndt1319]

GAO recommendations are not legally binding but you would be stupid to ignore them. If you do, whoever protested in the first place will just go to the Federal Courts. You better have a really good reason why you ignored GAO other than you didn't like the answer you got or you could be in a world of hurt. GAO is a cheaper way to settle disputes before going to the courts. It is a MASSIVE PITA if you worked a contract on the government side. GAO opinions are treated like quasi case law at the GAO level. I've referenced GAO decisions in memorandums or determinations for record going into a contract file. If you follow a GAO precedent, you are likely safe in a court from personal liability. Thankfully, I've only had to deal with a GAO level protest once in my career.

The decision on the Leupold protest was a given. I knew how it would come out as soon as I read the protest on Soldier Systems. This reads like a textbook case of how NOT to modify a contract. I don't know what the KO was thinking. I'm curious about what the Navy is going to do at this point. Are they just going to accept what they bought? Do a third competition? Clown shoes already.

[Slater]

If Leupold became a major thorn in the Navy's side on this particular contract, would the Navy find some way to retaliate (such as not considering them on any future contract?). I know that's not strictly legal, but stranger things have happened.

[RHINOWSO]

If Leupold became a major thorn in the Navy's side on this particular contract, would the Navy find some way to retaliate (such as not considering them on any future contract?). I know that's not strictly legal, but stranger things have happened.

That is always a fear, but in this case the Navy & SIG were trying to pull a fast one by bumping up the contract value by 80+%.

And yes, it isn't legal at all.

[sndt1319]

The Navy can't officially retaliate for someone protesting. Especially not when the Navy loses the protest. The system also does not allow you to retaliate unless the company did something unethical or illegal. I think one company in the history of the GAO was given a suspension on their right to protest after they were deemed a serial protester. They protested everything based on the same logic and lost every time. A company can be put on the excluded parties list and not allowed to compete for government contracts but you really have to mess up for that to happen. However, individual people can find little ways to screw a company over. The more complex the requirement the easier it is to do. The system is designed to be fair..... in a mindblowing rigid sort of way that takes forever and costs lots of extra money. Generally though, I find the PM is more vindictive than the KO is.

[Slater]

If the Navy finds that they must have the T-8 Horus etched reticle instead of the wire configuration (which is what the contract was awarded for), do they rescind the entire contract and recompete it? If so, would SIG have grounds to file a protest?

[sniperfrog]

NSW has used Nightforce scopes since the late 90s.