|
FAR
16.500 (c): Federal Supply Schedules - not exempt from
protest under Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act |
|
U.
S. Court of Federal Claims - Key Excerpts |
While the GAO decision in Severn recites that it relied on the legislative
history of FASA itself, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that FASA’s
legislative history “does not shed meaningful light on the scope of the task
order protest bar.” Id. It relied, instead, on the language of and regulatory
comment to FAR Subpart 16.5, which covers Indefinite Delivery contracts and the
procedures for orders placed against them. The court concluded that the
regulation and adopting commentary suggest that GSA FSS contracts are governed
by a separate regulatory scheme apart from ordinary Indefinite Delivery
contracts. It concluded that, although a GSA FSS contract might be of the
Indefinite delivery type, as is the case here, it is governed by FAR Part 8, the
provision dealing with GSA FSS contracts, rather than by FAR Subpart 16.5. FAR
Part 8 does not contain similar restrictive language. The court then concluded
that, because FAR Subpart16.5 does not apply to FSS contracts, neither should
the statutory bar. (Group Seven Associates, LLC, v.
U. S., and CACI, Inc., No. 05-867C, October 13, 2005) (pdf)
In sum, the procurement at issue in this case is not exempt from protest under the
FASA,
41 U.S.C. 253j(d), and may be reviewed for reasonableness pursuant to the Tucker Act.
28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1). (Labat-Anderson Inc., v. U. S. and JHM Research and Development,
Inc., No. 01-350C, July 27, 2001) |
|
|
U.
S. Court of Federal Claims - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
|
Group Seven Associates, LLC, v. U. S.,
and CACI, Inc., No. 05-867C, October 13, 2005 (pdf) |
|
|
Labat-Anderson Inc., v. U. S. and JHM Research and Development,
Inc., No. 01-350C, July 27, 2001 |
|
|
|
