![]() ![]() ![]() BDO, located at Virginia, with CAGE code 6YTU0, possessed an active secret FCL.To address the discrepancy the agency researched various contractor databases which revealed the following: ![]() The addresses of the facilities associated with the two CAGE Codes were different as well. However, in its cover letter, BDO USA identified a different CAGE Code, 6YTU0, and listed this CAGE Code on its DD 254. The CAGE Code corresponding to the FSS Contract was 32ZC7. The protester, BDO USA, LLC, submitted a quotation under its FSS Contract No. The RFQ required that contractors have and maintain a valid FCL, at the Secret level or higher, at the time of proposal submission, and that a Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Form (DD Form 254) be provided indicating this level of clearance. The solicitation in question was a Request for Quotations (RFQ) issued under a GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. This case presents yet another instance of GAO focusing on the precise legal identity of offerors in its decisions. In the decision, GAO upheld an agency's rejection of a proposal that used a CAGE Code of a subsidiary, which differed from the offeror's CAGE Code, to satisfy the RFQ's Facility Clearance (FCL) requirements. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruling is a caution to these organizations. Contractors with corporate structures involving more than one entity, such as parent and subsidiary, utilize multiple Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Codes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |