Scarinci Hollenbeck Attorneys Roshan D. Shah and Kevin M. Foltmer Successfully Represent New Jersey-Based AASKI Technology, Inc. in $576M Bid Protest Before GAO
Lyndhurst, NJ, June 25, 2019 – Scarinci Hollenbeck successfully represented AASKI Technology, Inc. (AASKI) in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), preserving the company’s award to provide technological support services to the U.S. Army. United Support Services, LLC (USS) protested the award, challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals. In a decision issued June 18, 2019, and made public on June 24, 2019, the GAO rejected the protest and upheld the award in favor of AASKI, allowing the company to begin work on the five-year, $576+ million U.S. Army contract.
The Request for Proposal
On August 23, 2018, the U.S. Army issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for sensor technology, operations and readiness maintenance (STORM) in support of the Army’s product manager, medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance systems (PdM MARSS) for current and emerging overseas contingency operations. These services are planned to support the overall mission of PdM MARSS of providing tactically relevant manned aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in support of current and emerging overseas contingency operations.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances
The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee/cost-no-fee task order using a best-value tradeoff based on cost/price, and the following non-cost/price factors: technical, contractor support capabilities, and small business participation plan.
The Proposals and Award
The Army received five proposals, including proposals from USS and AASKI. The Army rated four of the proposals, including USS’ proposal as unacceptable under the technical factor and eliminated the four proposals from consideration for the award.
With respect to USS, the Army assigned USS a deficiency, among other reasons, because it failed to explain how it would provide Airborne Sensor Operators (ASOs) for the AWAPPS and TACOP sensors.
AASKI, having submitted the only technically acceptable proposal, was awarded the contract. The Army concluded that AASKI’s proposed price was fair and reasonable and, moreover, represented the best value to the Government.
The Protest
In response to the award, USS filed a protest, contending, among other things, that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal, treated USS and AASKI disparately in the evaluation, and improperly failed to hold discussions. With respect to discussions, USS maintained that given the magnitude of the procurement, and the fact that the Army received only one technically acceptable offer, it was unreasonable for the Army not to engage in discussions.
AASKI Retains Contract Award
Following a briefing from USS, the Army, and AASKI, the GAO denied the protest. The GAO found reasonable the Army’s conclusion that USS’s proposal failed to explain how USS would provide ASOs for the AWAPPS and TACOP sensors reasonable. The GAO noted that USS’ “blanket statement in its proposal that it would provide an ASO for each sensor” did not salvage its proposal.
The GAO further rejected USS’ argument that the Army disparately evaluated proposals. The GAO found AASKI, like USS, explained how it proposed to leverage experienced teammates to provide qualified ASOs for all sensor systems. In comparison, the GAO noted that USS’s proposal “did not show that its teammate had current staff with experience with the EMARSS-G system, or the AWAPPS or TACOP sensors.”
Finally, the GAO rejected USS’ argument that the failure of the Army to engage in discussions was unreasonable here. The GAO explained that, although DFARS § 215.306 “provides that an agency should engage in discussions when the value of the acquisition equals or exceeds $100 million,” that provision was inapplicable here because the procurement was conducted under FAR part 16.
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Roshan D. Shah and Associate Kevin M. Foltmer represented AASKI in this matter.
Business Journal NJBIZ Names Ronald S. Bienstock and William C. Sullivan, Jr. Leaders in Law
Ronald S. Bienstock and William C. Sullivan, Jr. of Scarinci Hollenbeck Recognized as 2025 Leaders in Law by NJBIZ Little Falls, NJ – March 6, 2025 – One of New Jersey’s leading business journals, NJBIZ, has recognized Ronald S. Bienstock, Partner and Chair of the Intellectual Property Group, and William C. Sullivan, Jr., Partner and […]
Scarinci Hollenbeck Named Among 2025 Best Companies to Work For
Scarinci Hollenbeck Named in U.S. News & World Report’s 2025 Best Companies to Work For Law Firms Little Falls, NJ – March 4, 2025 − U.S. News & World Report, the global authority in rankings and consumer advice, has named Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC one of the best law firms to work for in its […]
Donald M. Pepe and Donald Scarinci Named to 2025 ROI-NJ Influencers: Law List
ROI-NJ Continues to Feature Donald Scarinci and Donald M. Pepe on Annual Influencers in Law List Little Falls, NJ – February 26, 2025 – Partner and Chair of Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC’s Commercial Real Estate Department Donald M. Pepe and Founding & Managing Partner Donald Scarinci have once again been named to ROI-NJ’s Influencers: Law […]
Don Pepe and Donald Scarinci in 2024 NJBIZ Power 50 in Law
Congratulations to Partners Don Pepe and Donald Scarinci for Inclusion in NJBIZ’s 2024 Power 50 in Law List Little Falls, NJ – July 23, 2024 – New Jersey’s leading business journal NJBIZ included Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC Founding & Managing Partner Donald Scarinci and Partner & Chair of the firm’s Commercial Real Estate department Donald M. […]
Scarinci Hollenbeck Transforms Real Estate Practice to Meet Evolving Client Needs
Reinforcing Commitment to Excellence, Scarinci Adds Six in Strategic Real Estate Law Practice Expansion Little Falls, NJ – June 20, 2024 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC has strategically added six attorneys in its commercial real estate group, significantly enhancing the firm’s already renowned practice in an effort to better service our clients’ needs throughout the New […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Scarinci Hollenbeck Attorneys Successful in $576M+ Bid Protest for AASKI Technology, Inc.
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Scarinci Hollenbeck Attorneys Roshan D. Shah and Kevin M. Foltmer Successfully Represent New Jersey-Based AASKI Technology, Inc. in $576M Bid Protest Before GAO
Lyndhurst, NJ, June 25, 2019 – Scarinci Hollenbeck successfully represented AASKI Technology, Inc. (AASKI) in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), preserving the company’s award to provide technological support services to the U.S. Army. United Support Services, LLC (USS) protested the award, challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals. In a decision issued June 18, 2019, and made public on June 24, 2019, the GAO rejected the protest and upheld the award in favor of AASKI, allowing the company to begin work on the five-year, $576+ million U.S. Army contract.
The Request for Proposal
On August 23, 2018, the U.S. Army issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for sensor technology, operations and readiness maintenance (STORM) in support of the Army’s product manager, medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance systems (PdM MARSS) for current and emerging overseas contingency operations. These services are planned to support the overall mission of PdM MARSS of providing tactically relevant manned aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in support of current and emerging overseas contingency operations.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances
The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee/cost-no-fee task order using a best-value tradeoff based on cost/price, and the following non-cost/price factors: technical, contractor support capabilities, and small business participation plan.
The Proposals and Award
The Army received five proposals, including proposals from USS and AASKI. The Army rated four of the proposals, including USS’ proposal as unacceptable under the technical factor and eliminated the four proposals from consideration for the award.
With respect to USS, the Army assigned USS a deficiency, among other reasons, because it failed to explain how it would provide Airborne Sensor Operators (ASOs) for the AWAPPS and TACOP sensors.
AASKI, having submitted the only technically acceptable proposal, was awarded the contract. The Army concluded that AASKI’s proposed price was fair and reasonable and, moreover, represented the best value to the Government.
The Protest
In response to the award, USS filed a protest, contending, among other things, that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal, treated USS and AASKI disparately in the evaluation, and improperly failed to hold discussions. With respect to discussions, USS maintained that given the magnitude of the procurement, and the fact that the Army received only one technically acceptable offer, it was unreasonable for the Army not to engage in discussions.
AASKI Retains Contract Award
Following a briefing from USS, the Army, and AASKI, the GAO denied the protest. The GAO found reasonable the Army’s conclusion that USS’s proposal failed to explain how USS would provide ASOs for the AWAPPS and TACOP sensors reasonable. The GAO noted that USS’ “blanket statement in its proposal that it would provide an ASO for each sensor” did not salvage its proposal.
The GAO further rejected USS’ argument that the Army disparately evaluated proposals. The GAO found AASKI, like USS, explained how it proposed to leverage experienced teammates to provide qualified ASOs for all sensor systems. In comparison, the GAO noted that USS’s proposal “did not show that its teammate had current staff with experience with the EMARSS-G system, or the AWAPPS or TACOP sensors.”
Finally, the GAO rejected USS’ argument that the failure of the Army to engage in discussions was unreasonable here. The GAO explained that, although DFARS § 215.306 “provides that an agency should engage in discussions when the value of the acquisition equals or exceeds $100 million,” that provision was inapplicable here because the procurement was conducted under FAR part 16.
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Roshan D. Shah and Associate Kevin M. Foltmer represented AASKI in this matter.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
