Login | Store | Training | Contact Us  
 Latest News 
 Product List 
 Related Links 

   HomeLatest News

Multistate IDIQ Construction Solicitation Upheld

The Court of Federal Claims denied a protest of an award for the design and construction of military facilities because the award was properly issued as an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract, and it did not violate the Small Business Act and the statutory requirements for design/build contracts, or otherwise constitute an abuse of discretion. The government set aside approximately 20 percent of the solicitation for socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses entitled to preferences under 15 USC 637(a)(1), 657a, and 657f. The remainder of the solicitation was consolidated to procure the rest of the work from two or three contractors that would each perform multiple construction projects at various sites across an eight-state region. According to the protester, the solicitation violated FAR Subpart 16.5 by using an IDIQ contract to procure construction services; violated the Act and 10 USC 2382(a) by improperly bundling the construction projects; violated the statutory and regulatory requirements for design/build contracts at 10 USC 2305a; and was an abuse of discretion. The court rejected all of the protester's arguments. Neither FAR Subpart 16.5, nor any other law, statute, or regulation prohibits the use of IDIQ contracts for the procurement of construction services. Furthermore, the solicitation was exempt from the Act's bundling requirements because the government reasonably determined, based on reliable market research, that consolidating the requirements was necessary and justified under 15 USC 644(e)(2)(A) to meet its cost and time-frame goals. Also, the protester failed to demonstrate the government's actions constituted an abuse of discretion. Its argument the solicitation violated the design/build requirements in 10 USC 2305a was based on a misreading of the statute, and its allegations the solicitation exaggerated the government's needs were unfounded. (Tyler Construction Group v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF 78,988)

(The news featured above is a selection from the news covered in the Government Contracts Report Letter, which is published weekly and distributed to subscribers of the Government Contracts Reporter. )


   2001-2020 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates
Print this Page | About Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map