GAO Bid Protests
News stories on federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel.
Featured Stories
GAO Denies Protest by BANC3 of Princeton, New Jersey
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by BANC3 of Princeton, New Jersey.
According to the GAO, BANC3 "protests the award of a contract to AASKI Technology, Inc., of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W5KGU-17-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, for technical support services. BANC3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals."
The bid protest decision (B-416486,B-416486.2) was issued on September 10, 2018 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416486,B-416486.2).
In
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by BANC3 of Princeton, New Jersey.
According to the GAO, BANC3 "protests the award of a contract to AASKI Technology, Inc., of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W5KGU-17-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, for technical support services. BANC3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals."
The bid protest decision (B-416486,B-416486.2) was issued on September 10, 2018 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416486,B-416486.2).
Inits findings, the GAO said: "Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulations; protester is not an interested party to maintain remaining allegations."
The participants in the case included: Katherine S. Nucci, Scott F. Lane, and Jayna M. Rust, Thompson Coburn, for the protester. Roshan D. Shah, Scarinci & Hollenbeck, for AASKI Technology, the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Department of the Army, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, and Tania Calhoun, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Protest by Crosstown Courier Service of Chicopee, Massachusetts
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by Crosstown Courier Service of Chicopee, Massachusetts.
According to the GAO, Crosstown Courier Service "protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25018Q0547 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for courier services in support of several medical centers and clinics in Virginia. The protester alleges that the solicitation is defective because it does not require vendors to provide detailed information concerning their labor costs, and because it does not require
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by Crosstown Courier Service of Chicopee, Massachusetts.
According to the GAO, Crosstown Courier Service "protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25018Q0547 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for courier services in support of several medical centers and clinics in Virginia. The protester alleges that the solicitation is defective because it does not require vendors to provide detailed information concerning their labor costs, and because it does not requirethe agency to perform a price realism evaluation."
The bid protest decision (B-416261) was issued on July 19, 2018 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416261).
In its findings, the GAO said: "1. Protest challenging terms of solicitation because they do not require labor cost breakdowns from vendors to assess compliance with the requirements of the solicitation is denied where the selected evaluation criteria are reasonable.
2. Protest alleging that a solicitation is defective for failing to provide for the evaluation of fixed prices for price realism is denied where the agency has wide discretion when deciding whether to include a realism evaluation provision in a solicitation for the award of a fixed-price contract."
The participants in the case included: Joseph A. Camardo, Nancy M. Camardo Justin T. Huffman, Camardo Law Firm, for the protester. Donald C. Mobly, Deborah K. Morrell, Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael Willems, and Edward Goldstein, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses in Part Protest by Delta Risk of Arlington, Virginia
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision dismissing in part and denying in part a bid protest filed by Delta Risk of Arlington, Virginia.
According to the GAO, Delta Risk "protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and the issuance of three task orders to G2, Inc., a small business concern of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-17-RP-0007, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for cybersecurity research, development, and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision dismissing in part and denying in part a bid protest filed by Delta Risk of Arlington, Virginia.
According to the GAO, Delta Risk "protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and the issuance of three task orders to G2, Inc., a small business concern of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-17-RP-0007, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for cybersecurity research, development, andimplementation services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, resulting in its improper exclusion from the competitive range. The protester also argues that G2 is affected by an incurable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that G2's pricing is unbalanced and unreasonable."
The bid protest decision (B-416420) was issued on August 24, 2018 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416420).
In its findings, the GAO said: "1. Protest challenging the agency's technical evaluation and its decision to exclude the protester's proposal from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that the decision was reasonable, and there is no evidence that the protester was prejudiced by any alleged evaluation errors.
2. Protest alleging that the establishment of the competitive range was improper is denied where the solicitation expressly provided that the agency reserved the right to initiate discussions if necessary.
3. Protest challenging the scope of the agency's corrective action is dismissed as untimely where the protester waited to file its protest until after the completion of the corrective action.
4. Protest alleging that awardee's pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester fails to make the threshold showing that one or more of the awardee's prices was overstated.
5. Protest alleging that awardee's pricing is unrealistically low is dismissed where the protester fails to allege that the solicitation provided for a price realism evaluation."
The participants in the case included: Douglas P. Hibshman, and Nicholas T. Solosky, Fox Rothschild, for the protester. Daniel E. Chudd, James A. Tucker, and Lauren J. Horneffer, Morrison & Foerster, for G2, the intervenor. Jonathan Baker, Department of Commerce, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
