REAN Cloud LLC (REAN) entered into an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement with the Army (facilitated by DIUx) to provide prototype cloud migration services. While the prototype work was still being performed, the Army and REAN agreed (using a sole-source award) that REAN would provide follow-on production work valued up to $950 million. Oracle America, Inc. (Oracle) protested the follow-on production award to REAN.
GAO sustained the protest filed by Oracle because the Army: (1) did not provide that there could be follow-on production work in the agreement between REAN and the Army as required when the production work is awarded sole-source and (2) the prototype work under the initial agreement had not been completed.
For example, the GAO upheld a protest because a company used the CAGE code of on of its subsidiaries!
(Side question: What does a “complete” prototype cloud migration look like, anyway?)
While OT Agreements simplify the acquisition process, agencies still have to follow the statutes and regulations that guide the award of OT Agreements and follow-on work. The decision issued by GAO confirmed that.
Got it. Dot your “i”s and cross your “t”s on thousands of other pages of regulations.
It’s not even clear that Oracle had standing to file a protest. This is where it gets really dicey. Oracle said if they knew about the follow-on work, then they would have bid.
In evaluating whether Oracle had standing to bring the protest, GAO balanced the fact that Oracle did not submit a brief to compete for the OT award with Oracle’s claims that it would have submitted a brief had it known the true scope of the project and the fact that a follow-on award was possible.
Government contractors are being taught that trolling pays off.
Leave a Reply