Brian X. Scott loses Iraq Contract Court Challenge

[WilliamDGoose]

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Miller/07/CMILLER.SCOTT.pdf

Here is the link to the decision.


Here is a brief of the decision:

BRIAN X. SCOTT, pro se, v. THE UNITED STATES, COFC No. 07-216C, August 23, 2007. Pre-award bid protest, Army solicitation. Solicitation is for an ID/IQ contract for operation of Reconstruction Operations Centers, personal security services to and from project worksites, guard force services for facilities and personnel, Reconstruction Liaison Teams, a Vetting Program for local hiring, and Anti-Terrorist Force Protection Services with a minimum of $3 million and a maximum of $475 million. Protester alleges that the solicitation is contrary to the Anti-Pinkerton Act, 5 U.S.C. §. 3108, and FAR 37.109. Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller dismissed the protest finding that protester lacks standing as he is not an interested party that would have a substantial chance of award. She notes that the “Solicitation involves a complex undertaking, requiring expertise in operation in a foreign locale thousands of miles distant from the United States; specific types of equipment and personnel; and an ability to finance much of the startup costs without the benefit of an advance payment, which was not authorized by the Solicitation. Plaintiff does not adduce any history of experience completing any of the required tasks in the Solicitation, nor does he show that he has the ability effectively to finance this endeavor. At present he is performing two contracts, which he values at $140,000.00 and $27,000.00, for domestic work that involves furnishing of PC technicians and site-improvement installments, including a shade structure and fence. .... These activities do not correspond with the Solicitation’s requirements. Plaintiff possesses $50,000.00 in savings, as well as approximately $350,000 in equity available in his home and makes a vague assertion that Booz Allen Hamiltons office is willing to extend ‘unlimited’ credit to him. ... Plaintiff has failed to substantiate this assertion with any documentation that a teaming partner relationship exists.“

[aquart]

1. Is there a "Dummies" book to explain this?

[monmouth]

2. My interpretation is he's not big enough, wealthy enough nor is he Halliburton....eom