The agency said the protester was ineligible because it was a joint venture that had not registered with SAM. The protester argued the agency had misidentified it as a joint venture. But GAO sided with the agency. The protester’s proposal contained compelling indicia—including a joint venture agreement—of an offer from a joint venture.
Prak Industries, LLC, GAO B-422517
- Exclusion of Protester – The agency excluded the protester’s proposal. The solicitation required offerors to be registered with SAM. The agency found the protester had submitted a proposal on behalf of a joint venture. While the joint venture partners were each registered with SAM, the joint venture itself was not.
- To JV or Not to JV – The protester argued the agency had misidentified the offeror as a joint venture. The protester maintained the proposal had been submitted by one of the putative joint venture partners, not by the joint venture itself.
- JV Submitted Proposal – GAO found the agency had reasonably concluded the offeror was submitted by a joint venture. The first page of the proposal stated that a joint venture was submitting the proposal. What’s more, the protester had attached a joint venture agreement to its proposal, which stated that the joint venture would be the prime contractor.
The protester is represented by Ruth E. Ganister of Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC. The intervenor is represented by Joshua A. Mullen, Christopher Lockwood, and Joshua R. Funderburke of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP. The agency is represented by William B. Blake of the Department of Interior, GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief