The agency argued the protester was not an interested party because another offeror had a higher-rated proposal. The protester reasoned that the other offeror had not protested, so that offeror was no longer pursuing an award and could not be next in line. But GAO said an intervening offeror does not forfeit their next-in-line status when they elect not to protest.
KSC, Inc. d/b/a Cups and Company, GAO B-422597
- Denial of Debriefing – The protester argued the agency unreasonably refused to provide a debriefing. GAO dismissed the argument. GAO will not consider challenges to the adequacy of a debriefing.
- Interested Party – The protester also argued the agency had given the awardee an unfair advantage by allowing the awardee access to the worksite. The agency claimed the protester was not an interested party; another offeror had received higher ratings and was not in line for award. The protester noted the other offeror had not filed a protest. Thus, the protester reasoned, the other offeror was no longer pursuing the award, so the protester was next in line. GAO rejected the argument. An intervening offeror may have elected not to protest, but that doesn’t mean they forfeit their next-in-line status.
John Shin and Yue He of Shin Legal, LLC represent the protester. The agency is represented by Robert Carson, Lloyd Subin, and John Ward of the Architect of the Capitol. GAO attorneys Cosette Vincent, Paul N. Wengert, and Tania Calhoun participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
