GAO Bid Protests
News stories on federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel.
Featured Stories
GAO Denies Protest by RIVA Solutions of Virginia
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by RIVA Solutions Inc. of McLean, Virginia.
According to the GAO, RIVA Solutions Inc., a small business, "protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1354981, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for information technology support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its quotation, arguing that the agency applied an unstated
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by RIVA Solutions Inc. of McLean, Virginia.
According to the GAO, RIVA Solutions Inc., a small business, "protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1354981, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for information technology support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its quotation, arguing that the agency applied an unstatedevaluation criterion in finding the quotation technically unacceptable. We deny the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-417858.2; B-417858.10) was issued on Oct. 29, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-417858.2,B-417858.10).
In its findings, the GAO said: "Protest challenging an agency's evaluation and rejection of quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation."
The participants in the case included: Elizabeth Jochum, and Zachary Prince, Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Ryan Lambrecht, and Jonathan S. Baker, Department of Commerce, for the agency. Heather Weiner, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses Protest by State of Oklahoma
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision dismissing a bid protest filed by The State of Oklahoma.
According to the GAO, The State of Oklahoma "protests the award of a contract to Mitchco International, Inc. (MCI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-18-R-0024, issued by the Department of the Army for full food services and dining facility services at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The protester contends that the agency has failed to comply with various provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA). We dismiss the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-416851.9)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision dismissing a bid protest filed by The State of Oklahoma.
According to the GAO, The State of Oklahoma "protests the award of a contract to Mitchco International, Inc. (MCI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-18-R-0024, issued by the Department of the Army for full food services and dining facility services at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The protester contends that the agency has failed to comply with various provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA). We dismiss the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-416851.9)was issued on Sept. 22, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-416851.9).
In its findings, the GAO said: "Protest by a state licensing agency, filed after the conclusion of binding arbitration with the Department of Education, challenging the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range and award of a contract under a solicitation issued pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act is dismissed. The Act gives authority for review of disputes between federal agencies and state licensing agencies regarding these procurements to the Secretary of Education, not the Government Accountability Office."
The participants in the case included: Peter A. Nolan, and Andrew J. Schumacher, Winstead PC, for the protester. Alan Grayson, Law Office of Alan Grayson, for Mitchco International, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, and Dana J. Chase, Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, and Evan C. Williams, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Sustain Protest by HomeSafe Alliance of Texas
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision sustaining a bid protest filed by HomeSafe Alliance LLC of Houston, Texas.
According to the GAO, HomeSafe Alliance LLC "protests the award of a contract to American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Inc. (ARC), of Parsippany, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-R004, issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for complete, global household goods (HHG) relocation services for DOD service members and civilians and U.S. Coast Guard members. HomeSafe challenges
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision sustaining a bid protest filed by HomeSafe Alliance LLC of Houston, Texas.
According to the GAO, HomeSafe Alliance LLC "protests the award of a contract to American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Inc. (ARC), of Parsippany, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-R004, issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for complete, global household goods (HHG) relocation services for DOD service members and civilians and U.S. Coast Guard members. HomeSafe challengesthe agency's determination that the awardee is a responsible contractor, asserts that the agency conducted misleading discussions, contends that the agency failed to adequately document oral presentations, argues that many aspects of the agency's technical and price evaluations were unreasonable, and asserts that the agency performed an improper best-value tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-418266.5; B-418266.6; B-418266.8) was issued on Oct. 21, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-418266.5,B-418266.6,B-418266.8).
In its findings, the GAO said: "1. Protest challenging a contracting officer's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility is sustained where the record shows that the contracting officer failed to consider that the awardee's statements offered in the course of a second responsibility determination--that two affiliates implicated in criminal wrongdoing would not contribute to contract performance--contradicted the awardee's technical capability proposal, and failed to consider that two top officers of the awardee's parent company are employees of one of the affiliates implicated in criminal wrongdoing. 2. Protest that the agency conducted misleading discussions is sustained where, although the protester's total evaluated price was consistently lower than other offerors' prices, in each round of discussions the agency advised the protester that its total price seemed high. 3. Protest that agency failed to adequately document oral presentations and the related discussions is sustained where the record demonstrates that the agency did not maintain a record of the oral presentations adequate to permit meaningful review. 4. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated awardee's small business subcontracting plan is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulations. 5. Protest that the agency disparately evaluated technical capability proposals is sustained where the differences in the assignment of strengths cannot be attributed to differences in the proposals. 6. Protest that the agency performed an unreasonable price reasonableness evaluation is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulations. 7. The weight accorded to the technical capability factor and price in the best-value tradeoff analysis was reasonable; the allegation that the best-value tradeoff analysis was flawed is sustained, however, because of the errors identified in the agency's underlying evaluation."
The participants in the case included: Craig A. Holman, Stuart W. Turner, Sonia Tabriz, Amanda J. Sherwood, Thomas A. Pettit, and Trevor G. Schmitt, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester Kara M. Sacilotto, Tracye Winfrey Howard, Brian G. Walsh, Samantha S. Lee, Cara L. Lasley, Lindy C. Bathurst, and Adam R. Briscoe, Wiley Rein LLP, for American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Inc., the intervenor Erika L. Whelan Retta, and Jason Smith, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Sustain Protest by Connected Global Solutions of Florida
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision sustaining a bid protest filed by Connected Global Solutions LLC of Jacksonville, Florida.
According to the GAO, Connected Global Solutions LLC "protests the award of a contract to American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Inc. (ARC), of Parsippany, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-R004, issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for complete, global household goods (HHG) relocation services for DOD service members and civilians and U.S. Coast Guard members.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision sustaining a bid protest filed by Connected Global Solutions LLC of Jacksonville, Florida.
According to the GAO, Connected Global Solutions LLC "protests the award of a contract to American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Inc. (ARC), of Parsippany, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-R004, issued by the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for complete, global household goods (HHG) relocation services for DOD service members and civilians and U.S. Coast Guard members.CGSL challenges the agency's determination that the awardee is a responsible contractor, asserts that the agency conducted unequal discussions regarding technical capability proposals, and challenges the agency's evaluation of oral presentations. The protester further argues that many aspects of the agency's technical evaluations were unreasonable and asserts that the agency performed an improper best-value tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-418266.4; B-418266.7) was issued on Oct. 21, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-418266.4,B-418266.7).
In its findings, the GAO said: "1. Protest challenging the contracting officer's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility is sustained where the record shows that the awardee's statements offered in the course of a second responsibility determination--that two affiliates implicated in criminal wrongdoing would not contribute to contract performance--contradicted the awardee's technical capability proposal. 2. Protest that the agency conducted unequal discussions regarding technical capability proposals is denied where the record does not support the protester's contention that discussions with the awardee unfairly focused on the technical proposal while discussions with the protester focused on price. 3. Protest that agency failed to adequately document oral presentations and the related discussions is sustained where the record demonstrates that the agency did not maintain a record of the oral presentations adequate to permit meaningful review. 4. Protest challenging the agency's conduct of discussions regarding oral presentations is sustained when the record does not provide a basis for finding that the discussions were fair. 5. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated oral presentations is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulation. 6. Protest that the agency disparately evaluated technical capability proposals is sustained where the differences in the assignment of strengths cannot be attributed to differences in the proposals. 7. Although the best-value tradeoff analysis methodology was reasonable and consistent with procurement law and regulation, the allegation that the analysis was flawed is sustained due to errors identified in the evaluation of the technical capability proposals."
The participants in the case included: James Y. Boland, Emily A. Unnasch, Christopher G. Griesedieck, and Taylor A. Hillman, Venable LLP, for the protester. Kara M. Sacilotto, Tracye Winfrey Howard, Brian G. Walsh, Samantha S. Lee, Cara L. Lasley, Lindy C. Bathurst, and Adam R. Briscoe, Wiley Rein LLP, for American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group Inc., the intervenor. Erika L. Whelan Retta, and Jason Smith, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Protest by Prudential Protective Services of Michigan
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by Prudential Protective Services LLC of Monroe, Michigan.
According to the GAO, Prudential Protective Services LLC, a small business, "protests the issuance of an order to Starside Security and Investigation, Inc., a small business of Diamond Bar, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID07200045, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), for detention officers. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a decision denying a bid protest filed by Prudential Protective Services LLC of Monroe, Michigan.
According to the GAO, Prudential Protective Services LLC, a small business, "protests the issuance of an order to Starside Security and Investigation, Inc., a small business of Diamond Bar, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID07200045, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), for detention officers. The protester argues that the agency unreasonablyfound its quotation technically unacceptable. We deny the protest."
The bid protest decision (B-419005, B-419005.2) was issued on Oct. 28, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-419005,B-419005.2).
In its findings, the GAO said: "1. Protest that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity is denied because the protester's interpretation of the solicitation language is not reasonable. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's quotation as technically unacceptable is denied because the record reflects that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation."
The participants in the case included: Douglas L. Patin, and Lisa A. Markman, Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, for the protester. H. Todd Whay, Baker, Cronogue, Tolle, and Werfel, LLP, for Starside Security and Investigation, Inc., the intervenor. Amy Cook, General Services Administration, for the agency. Heather Self, and Peter Tran, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
