NASA goes its own way, rankling GAO and IG
Connecting state and local government leaders
NASA has ignored its own promises to the Government Accountability Office to remedy a protested contract, which could jeopardize its long-term relationship with the watchdog agency.
NASA has ignored its own promises to the Government Accountability Office to remedy a protested contract, which could jeopardize its long-term relationship with the watchdog agency and damage agency officials' credibility with internal oversight authorities.
It also could hurt GAO's reputation for bid protest decisions, forcing unhappy vendors to take their complaints to the Court of Federal Claims. The latest conflict stems from a recent NASA inspector general's pointed criticism of how the space agency handled a procurement for mechanical computer-aided design and data management software last year, particularly its failure to meet promises made to GAO after a protest was filed.
Agencies rarely ignore GAO recommendations, and when they do, they have to justify their decision to Congress. But in this case, NASA not only did not follow through on its promise, it didn't notify lawmakers of its decision to move forward, either.
'This new information may cause the protest to be reopened,' said Michael Golden, GAO's managing associate general counsel. 'In any event, not notifying GAO could harm NASA's credibility and expose the agency to increased risk in any future litigation.'
Golden said GAO obviously would be concerned if an agency misrepresented its intentions regarding resolution of a protest.
'This is an unusual situation where, apparently, the corrective action wasn't followed through on. We rely on the agency's representations in these situations. I don't have statistics, but this looks like a situation we haven't had before,' Golden said. 'Our experience is that the corrective action is followed through on. Otherwise, obviously, the system isn't going to work.'
Unsuccessful bidders claimed NASA was 'attempting to establish the [mechanical CAD] and data management products of one vendor ... as the de facto NASA standard without an agencywide technical assessment and analysis to justify and support this standardization.' The protesters also claimed NASA violated procurement regulations.
Complaints received by the IG's office, which triggered the inquiry, also alleged the software used could jeopardize NASA's mission, but a spokeswoman for the IG's office said the office did not address that claim.
Because NASA had volunteered to take corrective action, including issuing a new request for quotation, GAO dismissed the protest in November.
Not only did NASA fail to reissue the solicitation, it has been proceeding with plans for a long-term renewal of software licenses with the company that won the contract.
NASA declined to explain why it did not follow through on its promises to GAO. And when the IG's office recommended that NASA notify GAO of its failure to follow through, the space agency seemed to brush off the suggestion.
NASA's 'comments in response to this recommendation stated that 'in the absence of an open bid protest, notification to the [GAO] would be an academic matter' and that 'the GAO does not consider academic matters,' ' a memo from the IG stated.
The saga began in late August 2005, when NASA issued a request for quotation, soliciting bids to provide 355 mechanical computer-aided design and data management software licenses, along with technical support services. Just five weeks later, on Sept. 29, the agency awarded a $5.2 million contract to Parametric Technology Corp. of Needham, Mass.
Two losing bidders'UGS Corp. of Plano, Texas, and ESCgov Inc. of McLean, Va.'filed protests with GAO.
The NASA IG's memo summarized the allegations:
- NASA failed to provide material answers to questions to all bidders.
- It improperly conducted a negotiated procurement using procedures that did not comply with competition requirements.
- It improperly waived several mandatory requirements of the solicitation in awarding the delivery order to PTC.
- It failed to accurately describe its requirements.
- It violated requirements of competitive procurement by improperly conducting what was, in effect, a sole-source procurement.
- It improperly purchased non-Federal Supply Schedule items under an FSS contract.