Fluor-B&W Portsmouth Says It Can Save Money
Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
4/11/2014
Fluor-B&W Portsmouth, LLC, sought to defend its plan to self-perform some work at the Portsmouth D&D project currently being handled by Professional Project Services (Pro2Serve) in a court filing late last week. Pro2Serve is suing FBP in federal court, accusing it of seeking to violate a teaming arrangement and subcontract through its plan to descope some of Pro2Serve’s work, as well as of attempting to poach Pro2Serve employees. Pro2Serve has claimed that FBP’s efforts could put its “ongoing viability” at risk, and late last week Pro2Serve was granted an interim temporary restraining order blocking FBP from moving forward with its descoping plan. In its court filing opposing the temporary restraining order, though, FBP said it is looking to self-perform more work in an effort to save money.
At issue is work Pro2Serve is performing at the Portsmouth D&D project through an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity subcontract with FBP. Services to be provided under the subcontract can include surveillance and maintenance of facilities; utility systems optimization, operations and maintenance; cross-cutting mission support; and leadership and execution of technical services, according to FBP’s filing. FBP determined that it could “save taxpayer dollars” by self-performing some of the work in the areas of cross-cutting mission support and leadership and execution of technical services, the filing states. “In accordance with this approach, FBP informed P2S [Pro2Serve] that it would no longer require certain services under the IDIQ as of May 1, 2014,” the filing states, adding, “FBP’s cost-savings strategy leaves P2S with significant work. In fact, FBP will continue to order services from P2S in excess of $5 million—as originally contemplated in the Teaming Agreement, and as agreed to in the IDIQ—in the categories of (1) Surveillance and Maintenance of Facilities and (2) Utilities Systems Optimization, Operations and Maintenance.”
FBP also pushed back against Pro2Serve’s allegations that it is improperly trying to take Pro2Serve’s employees as part of its efforts to self-perform more work. While the teaming arrangement between FBP and Pro2Serve prevents either from directly soliciting the other’s employees, according to FBP, the arrangement does allow each to hire from the other through the use of a “general solicitation.” FBP’s filing states, “The fact of the matter is that FBP has never engaged in anything more than general solicitation regarding the newly posted positions. FBP posted the job openings on its careers website, which was certainly permitted as a general solicitation under the Teaming Agreement. … FBP’s human resources supervisor then provided FBP managers … with talking points to use when discussing the open positions with FBP and subcontractor employees at Portsmouth GDP. … These talking points explicitly required FBP managers to keep any notifications about the open positions at a general notification level, and forbade them from giving any ‘assurances’ or ‘promises’ to P2S employees relating to the open positions.”
