ATL asserts that the fact that its proposals were acceptable warranted their inclusion in the competitive range for both procurements. In this regard, ATL acknowledges that it has been proposed for debarment, but disputes the bases for proposing to debar the firm and placing its name on the exclusion list in the SAM. ATL further argues that the agency either failed to make a determination whether there was a compelling reason to award it contracts, despite its proposed debarment, or unreasonably determined that a compelling reason did not exist. Protest of R002 at 4; Protest of R007 at 3-4.

As an initial matter, our Office does not review protests that an agency improperly suspended or debarred a contractor from receiving government contracts. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(i) (2013). Because the FAR sets forth specific procedures for both imposing and challenging a suspension or debarment action, see FAR §§ 9.406-3(b), 9.407‑3(b), the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes (including, as ATL claims here, procedural deficiencies) is with the contracting agency. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(i); Logan, LLC, B-294974.6, Dec. 1, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 188 at 7; Shinwha Elecs., B‑290603 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 154 at 5.

Further, as to ATL’s challenge of the reasonableness of the agency’s failure to find a compelling reason to consider ATL’s proposals for award, nothing in FAR § 9.405 requires that, prior to a contracting officer’s rejection of an excluded offeror’s proposal, the agency head must first consider whether a compelling reason exists not to exclude the contractor’s offer. Instead, the FAR simply allows an agency head to reach such a conclusion. Since there is no requirement to consider whether a compelling reason exists, ATL fails to state a valid basis for protest.  (Aria Target Logistics Services, B-408308.14, B-409055.2: Feb 27, 2014)  (pdf)

Further, to the extent that Triton challenges the proposed debarment, we note that the General Accounting Office will not review a protest that an agency improperly proposed a contractor for debarment, as the contracting agency is the appropriate forum for debarment disputes. See Shinwha Electronics , B-290603 et al. , Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 154 at 5. (Triton Electronic Enterprises, Inc., B-294221; B-294248; B-294249, July 9, 2004) (pdf)

With respect to future cases, our Office will no longer review, even under a limited standard, protests that an agency improperly suspended or debarred a contractor from receiving government contracts. Because the FAR sets forth specific procedures for both imposing and challenging a suspension or debarment action, see FAR S:S: 9.406-3(b), 9.407-3(b), we conclude that the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes is with the contracting agency. See SDA, supra. To the extent that our prior decisions are inconsistent with our ruling here, we will no longer follow our prior decisions in this regard.  (Shinwha Electronics, B-290603; B-290603.2; B-290931; B-290932, B-290932.2, B-291064, September 3, 2002)