Lockheed Martin submitted a novation package to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) on August 26, 2016, containing a contract amendment request [R2-3G IDIQ] to Leidos Innovations, which will take effect retroactively to August 16, 2016 in accordance with the FAR. This request for novation is still pending. Leidos Innovations is the full successor of the former Lockheed Martin [Information Systems and Global Solutions] company responsible for this proposal and proposed for the execution of the resulting order of tasks. Pending novification, Leidos Innovations will execute all contracts awarded under this proposal pursuant to a subcontract pending novation agreement between Leidos Innovations and Lockheed Martin. On August 16, 2016, a subsidiary of Leidos Holdings, Inc. merged. with the Information Systems and Global Solutions business unit of Lockheed Martin Corporation, which gave birth to a new entity, Leidos Innovations. RA, Tab 16, Response to Evaluation Notice, p. 1. As part of the transaction, the IDIQ contract under which this procurement will be made has been transferred from LMIS to Leidos Innovations. Id. When establishing negative liability, a contract agent has a high degree of discretion and must necessarily rely on his commercial judgment in the exercise of that discretion.

Torres Int`l, LLC, B-404940, May 31, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 114 to 4. While the conclusion must be substantiated objectively and made in good faith, the final decision is left to the Agency as it must bear the effects of any difficulty in achieving the required performance. For these reasons, we will not question a negative statement of liability in general, unless the protester can prove the agency`s bad faith or the lack of a reasonable basis for the decision. Colonial Press Int`l, Inc., B-403632, October 18, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 247-2. Our examination is based on the information available to the contract agent at the time of determination. LLC, B-287439, June 6, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 101-3. As a result, the Agency evaluated the proposal submitted by LMIS ”for execution by successors in the interest/subcontractor Leidos Innovations”. RA, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document at 4. In advance, the agency demanded in its agency report that we reject the protest because the offer in question was submitted by Lockheed Martin Integrated Solutions (LMIS) with the proposal to use Leidos as a subcontractor; Consequently, the agency maintains that Leidos is not qualified as an interested party to this protest. We disagree.

The agency received six submissions and, after conducting evaluations and discussions, concluded that Leidos was eligible for the award with the highest rated technical proposal and the lowest rated cost. Contract Officer/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) Statement at 5-7. Prior to the award, the Contractor attempted to assess the potential winner`s liability under RTEP and federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 9.103. In the end, the person in charge of the contract concluded that Leidos was not liable – and therefore not eligible for award – due to problems identified with one of the protester`s subcontractors, [DELETED]. RA, tab. 8, Determination of non-liability, p. 1. As relevant in this case, RTEP indicated to the suppliers that the service would take place at the contractor`s facilities or at government facilities, or both inside and outside the United States, and could include operations in remote, primitive or challenging environments. Id.

at p. 1. The Performance Statement of Work (PWS), which accompanied the RTEP, also informed suppliers that contractors are subject to certain additional clauses of the Federal Defence Procurement Regulations, including provisions that make them the Responsible Combat Commander (AOR) of the United States. Central Command (USCENTCOM) provides oversight to ensure compliance with the policies and guidelines of the Subordinate Task Force Commander. AR, Tab 5, PWS, at 51. View original content to download multimedia content:www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leidos-awarded-socom-tactical-airborne-multi-sensor-platforms-stamp-follow-on-operational-and-support-contract-for-program-manager-sensors—aerial-intelligence-pm-sai-301108220.html RTEP also said the government intends to evaluate the proposals and issue a work mandate without discussion, although the agency has agreed to hold discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) deems it necessary. RTEP at 6. It is important that the RTEP informs suppliers that the CO would make a disposition of liability prior to award.

Id. at p. 34. [4] For example, Leidos asserts that the agency was required to refer the case to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency before determining that the protester was not responsible. Demonstration at 24 hours. We believe this allegation is unfounded because Leidos is not a small business subject to the requirements of Far Subpart 19.6 or the Small Business Act. Similarly, we conclude that the protester`s argument that [DELETED] was not a significant subcontractor and is therefore not subject to the contractor`s decision to determine the liability of a potential subcontractor (and the resulting liability of Leidos as prime contractor) in accordance with FAR § 9.104. Even if we agreed with Leidos that [DELETED] was not a major subcontractor – which the agency denies – far § 9.104 (c) allows the contract agent to directly determine the liability of a subcontractor when it is in the government`s interest to do so.

According to the agency, until the end of the novation, Leidos is only a subcontractor and therefore not a party interested in bringing this protest. However, in response to the agency`s argument, the protester provided information suggesting that DCMA had indeed entered into the novation agreement and recognized Leidos as a successor in the interest of a number of contracts, including the R2-3G IDIQ contract, and had done so prior to the issuance of the task mandate in question. Protester`s Comments, Exhibit P, Novation Agreement and accompanying email. Given the novation agreement reached, which states that the government recognizes Leido as a successor in the interest of the R2-3G IDIQ agreement with all ”right, title and interest” of the original contractor, we have no basis to conclude that Leidos is not an interested party for the purposes of this protest. [3] See general view Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., et al., B-295401 et al., February 24, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 41 to 5 n.8 (the demonstrator is an interested party to protest if it is the successor in its own right in the interest of the business entity that submitted a proposal in the context of the call in question); McNeil Techs., Inc., B-254909, January 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 40 to 3-5 (Finding a successor in the interest of being an interested party). Statements contained in this press release that are not historical data and information constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements include the valuation of contracts assuming the exercise of all options. A number of factors could cause our actual results, performance, achievements or industry results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, the risk factors set forth in the Company`s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 3, 2020 and other such filings that Leidos files with the SEC from time to time.

As a result of these uncertainties and risks, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. The science and technology company Leidos has been awarded an open-ended contract by the Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground as part of the Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services contract. Under this agreement, Leidos will provide services to pilots, airborne sensor operators, operational support/lift and radius excursion, Intelligence Coordination Center personnel, systems training, logistics, aircraft maintenance and integration and primary mission equipment, configuration management and technical support to support the DHC-8 and King Air 300 aircraft of the program. Here, in reviewing Leidos` protest and the agency`s response to it, our office has reviewed information, including classified documents, that supports the agency`s determination of irresponsibility. In light of our review of the files, we consider the Agency`s decision to hold Leidos accountable due to the lack of basic access of its subcontractor to be reasonable. [2] The assigned value of the task order is approximately $272,000,000. Therefore, this procurement falls within our jurisdiction to negotiate protests in connection with the issuance of supply contracts under contracts with several non-award-winning contracts for an indefinite period. .