You asked why GAO did not reach certain issues in the DynCorp bid protest decision (DynCorp International LLC, B-294232, B-294232.2, Sept. 13, 2004, posted on our website). Specifically, you expressed concerns that the principal director and shareholder of the company awarded an Army contract to provide security services for contractor and government personnel in Iraq, Tim Spicer, of Aegis Defence Services Limited, lacks the requisite character to be awarded a contract by the U.S. government.
This contract, awarded pursuant to solicitation No. W911SO-04-R-0005, was issued to procure security services for contractor and government personnel in Iraq. These services included anti-terrorism support and analyses, movement escort services (including motorcades), and close personal protection services. The estimated value of the contract is $292.5 million over the next 3 years.
In its protest to GAO, DynCorp raised serious allegations about the character of Mr. Spicer, and whether the company he leads should be eligible to receive a U.S. government contract. In addition, DynCorp challenged the evaluation of its and Aegis's proposal, and challenged the Army's decision not to consider DynCorp's proposal in the final selection decision. Our bid protest decision reviewed the Army's conclusion that the DynCorp proposal was not acceptable as written, and concluded that DynCorp was reasonably excluded from the final selection decision. In the GAO bid protest forum--as in any other legal forum--we can only hear challenges from parties that have standing to raise those challenges. (This restriction is in our authorizing statute at 31 U.S.C. § 3552.) Once we reached the conclusion that DynCorp was reasonably excluded from further consideration, the company lacked standing to challenge the integrity of the awardee, Aegis.
GAO hears challenges to a contractor's responsibility when the challenge is raised by a company that has standing to raise it. In this case, there was another company in line for award after Aegis who could have challenged the responsibility of Aegis, but did not do so. Thus, it is not that we "did not care" about the matter, but that it was raised in a legal challenge by a company that did not have standing to raise it.