The protester did not protest an initial award, but it filed a protest following a corrective action and reevaluation. GAO determined that many of the protester’s arguments were now untimely. A protest following a reevaluation is not timely when the protester didn’t challenge similar evaluation findings after the initial award.
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-422118.2, B-422118.3
- Initial Protest and Corrective Action – Booz Allen bid on a solicitation but did not receive the award. Another offeror protested; Booz Allen did not. In response to the protest, the agency took corrective action to reevaluate. The agency made a new award. Booz Allen protested the new award.
- Untimely Arguments – GAO dismissed many of Booz Allen’s arguments. Under GAO precedent, the protest of a reevaluation is not timely when the protester failed to challenge similar evaluation findings following the initial award. Here, many of the protester’s arguments were based on facts and evaluation conclusions that had not changed since the initial evaluation.
- Unstated Criteria – The protester asserted the agency assigned strengths to the awardee based on a preference for the awardee’s incumbent status, which was not a factor listed in the solicitation. GAO wasn’t bothered. An offeror may possess an advantage based on its status as the incumbent. GAO did not think recognizing that advantage represented unstated evaluation criteria.
- Unavailable Key Person – The protester contended the awardee was ineligible because one of its proposed key persons was unavailable. Specifically, the protester noted this key person’s social media posts indicated she was retired. But GAO found the social media posts were not conclusive proof of unavailability. Indeed, the key person had not rescinded her letter of commitment. Additionally, the awardee had sought and received confirmation of her continued availability.
The protester is represented by Kristen E. Ittig, Amanda J. Sherwood, Roee Talmor, and Nicole Williamson of Arnold & Porter LLP. The awardee is represented by Brian G. Walsh, Tracye Winfrey Howard, Cara L. Sizemore, Sarah B. Hansen, and Morgan W. Huston of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Danica Hong and Catherine Gilabert of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
