L.A. Systems v. Department of the Army and Defense Information Systems Agency

GSBCA No. 13472-P (1996)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

L.A. Systems v. Department of the Army and Defense Information Systems Agency

General Services Board of Contract Appeals
GSBCA No. 13472-P (1996)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The Rock Island Defense Megacenter (Rock Island DMC), through the delegated procurement authority of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) (collectively, the government) (defendants) decided to purchase two upgraded central-processing units (CPUs) and two additional expanded memory units. Amdahl Corporation, the incumbent supplier, proposed to provide all four units for under $50,000 each, for a total of approximately $200,000. Without engaging in a full-and-open competitive bid solicitation process, the government awarded the procurement contract to Amdahl. However, rather than issuing a single procurement award for all four items, the government issued four separate procurement orders, one for each item. With each procurement order, the government issued a statement of urgency to justify its failure to synopsize the procurement solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) before awarding the contract to Amdahl. L.A. Systems (LAS) (plaintiff) filed a protest with the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) challenging the government’s procurement contract award to Amdahl as an improper sole-source acquisition, arguing that (1) the government improperly fragmented Amdahl’s acquisition award into four parts to allow the government to employ simplified acquisition procedures rather than full-and-open competition; and (2) the government failed to comply with pre-award synopsizing requirements. The government challenged, arguing that (a) although funding for the entire procurement was approved, the funding was released in four different blocks and the procurement orders were issued for each item as funding became available; and (b) the acquisition was urgent, and therefore exempt from synopsizing requirements, because the government needed to spend the procurement funds before year-end.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goodman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership