Protest alleging that the agency misled the protester regarding the issuance of a solicitation is denied. Before the agency’s contract specialist had approval to release the solicitation, she told the protester that the solicitation was forthcoming and that the firm should monitor fbo.gov. The protester alleged that the contract specialist’s actions were misleading and caused the protester to miss the posting of the RFP and the proposal deadline. GAO determined the protester had not been misled; rather, the protester’s failure to obtain the solicitation was due to its own heedlessness.
A General Services Administration contract specialist posted multiple notices of intent to solicit acquisition support services to fbo.gov. A couple months after the notices had been posted, the contract specialist received a completed RFP to post to fbo.gov.
The same day the contract specialist received the final RFP, a prospective protester, Async-Nu, emailed about the status of the solicitation. When the specialist received the email, she did not yet have authority to release the RFP. She told Async-Nu the RFP had not yet been released, that it would be released on fbo.gov, and that the firm should continue to monitor fbo.gov. Async-Nu wrote back that it would continue to monitor. Later that day, the contract specialist received approval to post the RFP. She posted it to fbo.gov that afternoon.
Async-Nu, however, did not see the post and thus did not submit a proposal in time. When it discovered that the RFP had been posted to fbo.gov, it filed a protest alleging that the contract specialist had misled the firm as to when the solicitation would be issued.
GAO found that Async-Nu had not been misled. When a protester argues that an agency failed to notify offerors of a solicitation, the protester must show they availed themselves of every opportunity to obtain the solicitation. Here, the record showed the contract specialist did not have final approval to release the RFP when she emailed Async-Nu and accurately told the company that the RFP had not been released. The contract specialist also told the company to keep monitoring fbo.gov. Given this, GAO concluded that Async-Nu’s failure to obtain the RFP was due to its failure watch fbo.gov.
Async-Nu is represented by John R. Tolle and H. Todd Whay of Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP. The agency is represented by Marie Cochran of the General Services Adminisration. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun participated in preparation of the decision.
