Matter of Sparksoft Corporation Decided: June 2, 2023 Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Disposition: Protest Denied Keywords: Best Value; Corrective Action Protest Insight This case is an important reminder that even though GAO may sustain a protest and require the agency to take corrective action and reevaluate proposals, the successful protestor may still
Matter of Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. Decided: February 28, 2022 Agency: Department of the Army Disposition: Request Granted Keywords: Reimbursed Attorney’s Fees; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Corrective Action Protest Insight This case provides unique insight into Alternative Dispute Resolution, as well as the mechanics of cost reimbursement. GAO may use ADR procedures during a protest
Matter of Amaze Technologies, LLC Decided: February 10, 2022 Agency: Department of the Air Force Disposition: Request Granted Keywords: Facility Clearance; Joint Venture; Corrective Action Protest Insight This case makes clear that requiring a Joint Venture (JV) to themselves have a facility clearance when where all of its component members have the requisite clearance,
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Naval Systems, Inc. Agency: Department of the Navy Disposition: Protest Denied. ________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protest challenging agency’s proposed corrective action in response to an earlier protest is denied where the record shows that the agency’s corrective action– revising the solicitation, obtaining revised proposals and making a new source selection decision–is necessary
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: EOD Technology, Inc. Agency: Department of the Army Disposition: Protest Dismissed. ______________________________________________________________ General Counsel PC Highlight: EOD Technology, Inc. protested the corrective action taken by the agency under an RFP for security services in Afghanistan. The RFP provided for award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. In its written debriefing following
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: URS Federal Services, Inc. Agency: Internal Revenue Service Disposition: Request Granted in Part, Denied in Part. _________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: GAO will recommend that the agency reimburse the protester for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, where the agency did not take corrective action in response to the protest until
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Kingdomware Technologies Inc. Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs Disposition: Request Denied. _________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protester is not entitled to reimbursement of protest costs after agency took corrective action where protest was not clearly meritorious. General Counsel PC Highlight: Kingdomware Technologies Inc. requested that the GAO recommend that it be reimbursed the
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Data and Analytic Solutions, Inc. Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Disposition: Protest Denied. ______________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: In a negotiated procurement for the award of a cost reimbursement contract where offerors were provided a range of estimated monthly workloads and where offerors based their cost proposals upon differing workload assumptions,
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. Agency: Department of the Army Disposition: Protest Denied. ______________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protest objecting to proposed corrective action taken in response to earlier protest is denied where agency reasonably determined that the proposals received in earlier acquisition indicated that there were two reasonable interpretations to an amendment
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Inchcape Shipping Services Holding, Ltd. Agency: Department of the Navy Disposition: Protest Denied. ______________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Agency was not required to provide for the submission of revised proposals due to the fact that approximately one year had elapsed between the submission of proposals and contract award. Protest that awardee’s prices were