Matter of: M.R. Pittman Group, LLC Agency: Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers Disposition: Protest Dismissed Decided: May 5, 2021 Keywords: Pre-Award Protests, Timeliness Of Protest, Small Business Set-Aside, Ambiguity in Solicitation, Pre-Solicitation Notice General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Protest dismissed where an other-than-small business protester argued that the opportunity was not a small
Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. Agency: Department of Homeland Security Disposition: Protest Denied Decided: April 26, 2021 Keywords: Timeliness of Protest, Task Order, Discussions, Technical Evaluation General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Protest dismissed where the protester filed a second protest, after the agency took corrective action, with alleging a new basis for protest that
Matter of M&C Venture Group, LLC Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs Disposition: Protest Dismissed Decided: September 15, 2020 Keywords: Timeliness of Protest; Preaward Protest General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A protest based upon alleged improprieties that are apparent in a solicitation must be filed prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. Summary of Facts
Matter of AGMA Security Service, Inc. Agency: Department of Homeland Security Disposition: Protest Dismissed Decided: June 24, 2020 Keywords: Timeliness of Protest, Filing Deadlines General Counsel P.C. Highlight: A protest based on challenges, other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation, must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have
Matter of American Systems Group Agency: Department of the Air Force Disposition: Protest Dismissed Decided: June 9, 2020 Keywords: Timeliness of Protest; Price Realism; Pre-Award Protest General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Protests must be filed no later than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. Summary of
Agency: Department of Defense, United States Transportation Command Disposition: Protest Sustained in Part and Dismissed in Part Keywords: Timeliness of Protest; Evaluation Criteria General Counsel P.C. Highlight: (1) Objections to RFP structure, which may allow offerors to propose unbalanced pricing, must be objected to before the time set for receipt of initial proposals. Subsequent objections
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Cyberdata Technologies, Inc. Agency: General Services Administration Disposition: Protest Sustained. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protester’s argument that its technically acceptable quotation was excluded from the competition without consideration of price in a best value acquisition for the establishment of blanket purchase agreements (BPA) under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) is sustained where
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Millennium Space Systems, Inc. Agency: Department of the Air Force Disposition: Protest Dismissed in Part; Denied in Part. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: A debriefing provided in a procurement conducted as a Broad Agency Announcement pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 6.102(d)(2) and FAR § 35.016 does not fall within the exception
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: Qwest Government Services, Inc. Agency: Department of the Interior Disposition: Protest Denied. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Agency’s assessment of risk in the protester’s price proposal was reasonable where the protester based its price on assumptions that were not stated in the solicitation. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is
Link: GAO Decision Protestor: CH2M Hill Antarctic Support, Inc. Agency: National Science Foundation Disposition: Protest Denied. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ GAO Digest: Protest challenging the assignment of an evaluation rating for the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the rating was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Exchanges with the awardee were clarifications, and not