The protester said the agency made statements during the debriefing that conflicted with the solicitation. GAO didn’t find this problematic. When there’s a conflict between the solicitation and statements made during a debriefing, the solicitation governs. What’s more, the protester’s argument was really a challenge to the debriefing, which GAO will not consider.
Western Metal Supply, Inc., GAO B-421919
- Untimely Protest – The protester challenged an award. The protester argued the solicitation lacked specifications. GAO found this argument was an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. The protester should’ve raised this issue before the proposal deadline, not after award.
- Debriefing – The protester argued the agency had unreasonably evaluated two CLINs as mandatory items. The protester said an agency official had conceded during the debriefing that those CLINs were optional, not mandatory. GAO opined that it didn’t matter what the agency said during the debriefing. The solicitation did not state the CLINs were optional. Any statement made at the debriefing would have been inconsistent with the solicitation. In any event, the protester was challenging the debriefing’s sufficiency. But a debriefing is a procedural matter that does not involve the validity of an award. Thus, GAO does not consider challenges to the sufficiency of a debriefing.
The protester is represented by Abel Caballero. The agency is represented by Erika Whelan Retta and Lawrence Anderson of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Suresh S. Boodram, Michael Willems, and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
