The Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) is supposed to be a way for agencies to streamline procurement. However, achieving the desired efficiency requires that the Government buyer use the right contract vehicle for a given requirement. If the Government uses the wrong schedule—or a contractor proposes to provide goods or services that are not available under its schedule contract, and the agency fails to perform a careful evaluation—litigation may effectively eliminate the desired efficiencies. A recent GAO decision, US Investigations Services provides a good example of how thing can go awry.

The FBI issued a task order for services in connection with its National Name Check Program to the awardee using the awardee's FSS contract. Under the task order, the awardee would research FBI files, assist in responding to FOIA requests, and support the agency in making national security classification determinations.

The protester raised several protest grounds, and GAO sustained one: the labor categories required to perform the task order were not in the awardee's FSS contract. The agency's solicitation included four labor categories, and the awardee proposed a single labor category from its FSS contract to satisfy the requirements of three of the categories. GAO compared the labor categories required under the solicitation with the description of the awardee's category and determined "that the duties, responsibilities and qualifications of the types of employees solicited by the agency are not encompassed within" the awardee's labor category. The agency was looking for personnel with in-depth knowledge of FBI policy and functions, as well as experience in records management, declassification review, and paralegal services. The awardee's labor category focused on general aspects of program management, such as developing business methods, identifying best practices, and creating and assessing performance measurements.

GAO noted that the contemporaneous evaluation record did not indicate that the agency considered whether the awardee's FSS contract included labor categories that fit the task order requirements. And, in defending the protest, the agency focused on educational and experience requirements—and failed to explain how the awardee's labor categories were purportedly consistent with the task order's substantive requirements. GAO sustained the protest, and what should have been an efficient streamlined procurement using the FSS resulted in a sustained bid protest (and substantial delay) because an improper FSS contract was used for an agency requirement.

GAO's recommendation is also worthy of a brief discussion. As GAO analyzed the awardee's proposal, that offeror was ineligible for award. With the awardee out of the running, the protester was next in line for award. However, the agency had overridden the CICA stay and proceeded with performance; accordingly, terminating the awardee's task order (and making an award to the protester) may not be feasible. In addition to the recommendation that the prevailing protester's litigation costs be paid, GAO recommended that, in the event the agency determined termination of the awardee's task order is not feasible, the agency should also reimburse the protester's bid and proposal costs.

Tags: Federal Supply Schedule, GAO

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.