Share:
The protester maintained that the Army was required to meet a certain Policy Directive obligation with a Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) phase III award. The protester relied on SBIR Policy Directive § 4(c)(8) to substantiate this claim. GAO dismissed the protest. It found that the protester failed to show that the subject task order met the policy directive’s criteria that would obligate the agency to pursue a phase III award.
Inkit Inc., GAO B-423724
- Background – The protester challenged the agency’s actions related to a task order for its Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) program. The protester asserted that under the SBIR Policy Directive § 4(c)(8), the agency was required to consider phase III commercialization and notify phase II vendors.
- Factual Basis – GAO dismissed the protest. The SBIR Policy Directive gives agencies discretion to pursue SBIR phase III awards. It only mandates the phase III award when the agency specifically “pursue[s] the…production of technology developed under the SBIR/STTR program.” Because the protester did not establish that the subject task order pursued technology that was developed under its SBIR phase I or phase II awards, GAO dismissed the case.
- Interested Party – Additionally, GAO dismissed the protest because the protester did not hold a CHESS contract. Thus, the protester was not an interested party that could challenge the task order.
The protester was represented by Michael McCarthy. The agency was represented by Wade L. Brown of the Army. Glenn G. Wolcott and April Y. Shields of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
Share:
