This week’s episode covers DOJ, IDIQ, and GAO case law news, and is hosted by partner David Robbins. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without. |

In CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 12-708-C (April 11, 2013), the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) sustained CW Government Travel’s (“CWT”) protest challenging the General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) decision to award a multiple award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (“IDIQ”) contract valued in excess of $103 million to a single source as inconsistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1) because GSA’s determination that only one offeror was qualified and capable of performing was based on a best-value trade off, instead of on an analysis of the offeror’s individual ability to perform. According to the Court, this was a case of first impression. With this opinion, Judge Sweeney provides guidance to agencies and offerors as to when the government may – and particularly when the government may not – issue a single-source IDIQ contract in excess of the $103 million FAR-based threshold.

In the procurement at issue, GSA awarded a single-source IDIQ contract valued at over $1.3 billion for a next generation of travel management services to Concur Technologies (“Concur”). During the evaluation process, GSA assigned Concur’s proposal an overall rating of “Very Good” and CWT’s proposal a “Marginal” rating. Under the solicitation’s definition for a Marginal rating, the proposal “does not meet Government requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but the issues are correctable.” CWT and Concur were the only two competitors in the procurement. However, GSA ultimately concluded that not only was Concur’s proposal was more competitive that CWT’s, but also that Concur was the only offeror qualified and capable of performing at a reasonable price because CWT’s proposal received the “lowest technical rating at the highest price.”
Continue Reading In Case of First Impression, COFC Concludes Single-Source Award in Multiple Award IDIQ Contract Fails to Satisfy FAR 16.504

Photo of James G. Peyster

This week, in UXB-KEMRON Remediation Services, LLC, B-401017 (Oct. 25, 2010), the GAO provided an important reminder about its exacting application of timeliness rules. 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) published a delivery order proposal request under a multiple award, ID/IQ contract for landmine removal work in Afghanistan. The ID/IQ schedule contract under