CACI loses lawsuit over re-entry into $7.9 billion Army technology hardware race

Although details are still unclear, CACI International lost its latest bid to retake a $7.9 billion Army hardware contract held by longtime incumbent General Dynamics.

CACI filed its first complaint with the Government Accountability Office after being removed from the competition in October 2022 due to allegations of systemic conflicts of interest.

The company worked with a consultant who was a former Army official and chair of a source selection advisory committee involved in previous iterations of the Army Common Hardware Systems contract.

The Government Accountability Office ruled that there was a dispute despite CACI’s mitigation measures and reassurances. GAO said CACI lacks an adequate OCI mitigation process and therefore the company is not eligible to participate in that work.

CACI, headquartered in Reston, Virginia, took the next step and filed a protest with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in March. CACI argued in its complaint to the court that it never had the opportunity to fully defend itself.

The court ruled against CACI on July 5, leaving the Army free to move toward a sixth version of the Common Hardware Systems contract. This is an IT hardware supply contract that General Dynamics’ Mission Systems business unit has held for several years.

In the CHS-6 competition, Mission Systems took the lead on behalf of its sister organization, General Dynamics Information Technology.

The Army uses CHS contracts to purchase commercial IT products and services for multidomain networks to support the Army’s joint all-domain command and control structure, known as JADC2. The Army wants to improve interoperability and reduce costs over the life of IT equipment.

Multiple companies are nominated for the award, and the award could be decided by the end of the summer.

We will continue to monitor the release of the public version of the Court’s decision, which will provide more detail on what CACI argued and where it disagreed with the Court.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button