It was reported yesterday that Shirlington Limousine & Transport, which has been under investigation as part of the whole Duke Cunningham et al. mess, will no longer be one of DHS’s rides now that it has lost its protest of contract non-renewal and the terms of a new bid. The news is courtesy of Government Executive at GovExce.com.
As we all know, Shirlington allegedly provided prostitutes to public officials through the Cunningham Corruption Corporation. Shirlington evidently protested to the Government Accountability Office when it lost its bid to renew the DHS transportation services contract. The basis of Shirlington’s protest? Get ready for a laff:
Among other objections, Shirlington argued the contract should have been issued as a set-aside for a business located in a historically disadvantaged area, as it had been set up previously. GAO ruled that DHS's decision to instead use a small business set-aside clause was appropriate in this case, since it was unclear that more than one qualified company would bid for the location-based preference. That company, of course, was Shirlington.
If someone in the Beltway can edify me please, on whether Washington’s Red Light District, if one exists, is also a "historically disadvantaged area" I'd appreciate it ‘cause I’m having trouble thinking through all of this. It does make me wonder, though, how a geographic preference made it into the previous bid requirement when Shirlington, in the mind of GAO, is maybe the only qualified candidate. If this is true now, and if it was true then, we've got an interesting possibility of bid rigging back in the original solicitation (no pun intended).
I can’t believe the company had the stones to protest. Then again, at this point, what’s left not to believe of the Criminal Organization Formerly Known as the GOP?
But that’s not all. Check this out, straight from the GAO ruling:
From the record, it appears that the higher cost of the contract stems primarily from the shift of responsibility for the sedans and the storage facility from the government to the contractor.
Ah, yes, those never-ending, ever-giving benefits of privatization! What more can I say (except that all emphasis above is mine, of course).