Pre-award protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is denied in part and dismissed in part. The protester argued that an accreditation requirement was too restrictive. GAO disagreed, finding that the requirement was reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. Because the protester lacked the accreditation required by the solicitation, GAO found that it was not an interested party that could maintain a protest. Accordingly, GAO dismissed the protester’s remaining arguments.
The Army published a solicitation for automated medication dispensing cabinets. The solicitation required that the cabinets access a DoD information technology system. To access the system, an offeror had to be risk management framework/authority to operate (RMF/ATO) certified by DoD. Accordingly, offerors had provide proof of RMF/ATO certification in their proposal.
A prospective offeror, Omnicell filed a pre-award protest challenging the RMF/ATO certification requirement as unduly restrictive. Omnicell argued that the requirement was unduly restrictive on its face because the company had been unable to obtain an agency sponsor for the certification process.
GAO noted that a requirement is not unduly restrictive if it is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s actual needs. Here, the Army had demonstrated that it needed the cabinets to connect to DoD’s information technology system. What’s more, in order to connect to that system, offerors had to be RMF/ATO certified. The requirement for RMF/ATO certification was therefore reasonable.
Because GAO concluded the RMF/ATO certification was a reasonable, and because no one disputed that Omnicell could not satisfy this requirement, GAO found that Omnicell was not an interested party that could maintain the protest grounds it had raised. Even if GAO sustained the protest on other grounds, Omnicell could not offer a compliant product. Accordingly, GAO dismissed Omnicell’s other protest grounds.
Omnicell is represented by Julie M. Nichols of Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC. The agency is represented by Scott N. Flesch and Major Gregory O’Malley of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision