Partner Frank Murray, Jr. was quoted in the Washington Business Journal article, “Experts weigh whether Perspecta’s protest of a massive Navy IT contract will have better luck in court,” about whether the IT company’s protest of a massive, $7.7 billion Navy IT contract in the Court of Federal Claims will be more successful than it did before the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
In June, GAO ruled against Perspecta, rejecting seven claims made by the company in its bid to overturn Leidos Holdings Inc.’s award of the NGEN-R Service Management, Integration and Transport contract. Those claims included that Leidos had an unfair competitive advantage based on the hiring of a former government employee and that the Navy made proposal evaluation errors.
In July Perspecta took its case to the Court of Federal Claims, a move that government contracting attorneys say is not uncommon, especially for companies seeking more discovery on why they lost a contract and how an agency may have erred in making its evaluation.
“It’s a frequent source of frustration as a protester, that GAO typically defers to the agency on what they produce in terms of documents,” said Muray.
“The agencies are allowed to hide the ball on the record to a certain extent and not just put all of their cards on the table in the face of a protest,” he said. “At the Court of Federal Claims, one of the reasons that you go there … is because the government is required in the Court of Federal Claims to produce the underlying evaluation record, including the other party’s proposal and they have to produce it without redactions.”