The back and forth continues, this time in the Courts, in the fight for this 10-year Federal Trade Commission Information Technology Support Services (ITSS) task order.
“NETCENTRICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and LEIDOS, INC., Defendant-Intervenor (Filed: February 13, 2024)
On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff, NetCentrics Corporation, filed its amended complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), challenging the government’s award of a Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) information technology contract to DefendantIntervenor, Leidos, Inc. ECF No. 28. On January 11, 2024, Defendant, the United States,
filed a motion for voluntary remand and stay “to reconsider certain aspects of the challenged agency decision” and “to issue a new source selection decision.” ECF No 29. NetCentrics opposes the government’s motion, ECF No. 31. Leidos does not. ECF No. 32. The Court denies the motion because the government has failed to provide a substantial justification for its requested remand. In particular, the government’s motion
lacks sufficient factual detail, is at times contradictory, and does not address several claims in the operative complaint. The proposed remand would not render the complaint moot, and, in all likelihood, would simply further delay this case.”
“PROCEDURAL HISTORY
NetCentrics filed its initial complaint in this case on November 8, 2023. ECF No. 1. On November 15, 2023, this Court held an initial status conference and issued a scheduling order. ECF No. 20. The scheduling order memorialized the following:
During the status conference, counsel of record for the government also informed the Court that the government has agreed to stay the procurement at issue in this case. The Court understands that the stay will preserve the status quo pending the resolution of this case . . . .
On December 22, 2023, NetCentrics filed two motions: (1) for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 26; (2) for judgment on the administrative record, ECF No. 27. The Court granted the former, which was unopposed; NetCentrics then separately filed its amended complaint on January 3, 2024. ECF No. 28 (“Compl.”). The amended complaint asserts seven (7) substantive claims: (1) that “[b]y giving
Leidos the exclusive privilege or engaging in discussions, the FTC acted unfairly and unreasonably,” Compl. ¶ 60 (Count I); (2) that the FTC unreasonably waived solicitation requirements for Leidos, id. ¶¶ 65-73 (Count II); (3) that the FTC’s technical evaluations were arbitrary and capricious, id. ¶¶ 80-87 (Count III); (4) that the FTC unreasonably both assigned Leidos a significant strength for a particular aspect of its proposal and failed to
treat NetCetrics similarly, id. ¶¶ 88-97 (Count IV); (5) that the FTC unreasonably evaluated NetCentrics as having a weakness for a particular technical factor, id. ¶¶ 98- 106 (Count V); (6) that the FTC erroneously evaluated past performance for both Leidos and NetCentrics, id. ¶¶ 107-118 (Count VI); and (7) that the FTC “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of whether Leidos” had an organizational conflict of interest
(“OCI”), id. ¶ 120 (Count VII).1
On January 11, 2024, the government filed its motion to remand this case and to stay the case pending the completion of the remand proceedings. ECF No. 29 (“Def. Mot.”). On January 16, 2024, the Court stayed “the pending deadlines in this case until the motion to remand is resolved” via docket order. NetCentrics filed its response in opposition to that motion on January 23, 2024. ECF No. 31 (“Pl. Resp.”). Leidos filed a
memorandum in support of…”
Read the full Decision Document here.
Related
- Contract Award: $104M FTC End User Support Services (EUSS), September 2022
- Decision released in protest denial of FTC requirement for IT Services and Solutions
Is your company an OS AI Premium Member? Learn about all the benefits here. Packages start at $500.