QWEST LOSES PROTEST AT GSA OVER FTS 2000 BRIDGE CONTRACTS
Qwest lost agency-level protest at General Services Administration (GSA) on bridge contract for FTS 2001 awarded to Sprint and AT&T, incumbent bidders for original FTS 2000. GSA decision not to seek competitive bids for interim contract was “business judgment,” agency protest official Donald Suda said. “Qwest’s argument is really a difference with the agency’s judgment of what is ‘practicable,’ that is, where the agency drew the line,” Suda said. GSA had argued that Qwest couldn’t provide national long distance service under contract because it couldn’t provide interLATA services in states where former U S West didn’t yet have Sec. 271 authorization. Suda handed down decision late Mon. and it was made public Wed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
After missing deadline for shifting federal agency traffic from old FTS 2000 contract to FTS 2001, GSA awarded 6-month bridge contract to Sprint and 12-month extension to AT&T (CD Dec 6 p1). In its challenge (CD Dec 18 p2), Qwest contended sole-source interim contracts carried rates that on average were 25% higher to those for FTS 2000 and that GSA should have competitively bid them. Qwest said GSA didn’t follow procurement laws and failed to demonstrate reasonableness of contract prices. Carrier, which holds several Metropolitan Area Acquisition contracts to provide local telecom services to federal agencies, contended several other carriers were positioned to provide bridge contract services.
However, Suda concluded that GSA hadn’t violated any federal law or contracting regulation in deciding that urgency compelled agency to make sole-source awards. GSA had argued to Suda that Qwest didn’t have standing to file protest because it couldn’t provide long distance services in all states as result of its merger with U S West. Suda’s 4-page opinion said Quest had contended that it could provide national service under contract by reaching teaming arrangement with another IXC in U S West states. Suda expressed skepticism, saying Qwest didn’t identify potential partner. “Qwest’s argument that it can meet the government’s needs is troubling,” he said, because Qwest didn’t commit to providing full range of services “required to meet the government’s needs.” He said “Qwest has not even established that it could interest another provider in entering a teaming arrangement to provide essentially dated services for the short time covered by the bridge contracts.”
Qwest contention that GSA had violated federal acquisition regulations by acting unreasonably “is simply incorrect,” Suda said.
Decision was based largely on lack of standing, Qwest Govt. Systems Div. Senior Vp James Payne said. “This decision casts a long shadow over the drive for competition in the FTS contract arena, which was our principal objective in filing this protest,” he said. Company filed protest at GSA in belief that agency process would resolve protest “judiciously,” he said. “Their failure to do so suggests that GSA was unable to apply the necessary objectivity for self-correction.”
“He kind of didn’t get the point,” Payne said of Suda’s decision. “The point was that basic rules of procurement were violated and the response we got back was: ‘You don’t have standing. There was a logical reason why we broke the law.'” Qwest is evaluating further appeal of decision, either to General Accounting Office (GAO) through its govt. procurement protest arm or to U.S. Court of Claims, Payne said. He said Suda’s opinion came as GAO was circulating for comment draft report (CD March 14 p1) that cited extent to which GSA had lacked data to assess progress of transition and other issues that contributed to lag in transition to FTS 2001 from FTS 2000. Suda’s conclusions about Qwest’s ability to meet contract terms also assumed that all contractors were doing same thing under FTS agreements, Payne said. He said that in some cases, vendors had waived themselves out of whole categories of services they didn’t want to provide. One “frustration,” he said, is that Suda could have provided feedback at hearing in Jan. about standing issue.