Protest challenging agency’s corrective action is denied. The protester argued that the corrective action, which involved amendment of the solicitation, was unnecessary. GAO, however, found that amendment was appropriate because the solicitation did not adequately describe the agency’s needs and may have been ambiguous.
The Department of Justice published a solicitation seeking audits of federal correctional institutions. The solicitation required a minimum ordering amount of $7,000 per audit. After evaluating proposals, DOJ awarded a contract to PREA Auditors of America. After award, the contracting officer noticed that PREA had proposed $5,995 per audit, which was less than the solicitation’s minimum ordering amount. The CO modified the minimum ordering amount to $5,995 to reflect PREA’s price.
The incumbent, Nakamoto Group, Inc., protested the award to PREA, arguing that DOJ had unreasonably made award under the solicitation’s $7,000 minimum order amount. In light of the protest, DOJ determined that neither of the $7,000 or $5,995 minimum ordering values reflected its needs because they reflected single audits even though the agency usually conducted 20 audits per year. DOJ decided to take corrective action to amend the solicitation to change the minimum order from a monetary value to minimum number of audits (10) per year.
PREA filed a protest challenging DOJ’s corrective action. PREA argued that the corrective action was unnecessary and was so insubstantial that it indicated there was really nothing to correct. PREA also complained that DOJ had unreasonably disclosed its price to other offerors after award.
GAO did not believe the corrective action was unnecessary. DOJ had concluded that the minimum order clause did not accurately reflect the agency’s needs and that it presented a potential ambiguity. GAO will not object to a corrective action so long as it is appropriate to remedy the concern that prompted the corrective action. Here, the corrective action remedied the issues DOJ identified in the procurement.
GAO also determined that the disclosure of PREA’s price was not improper. Agencies are required to release the price of the awardee under FAR 15.503(b). Moreover, agencies are not required to equalize the competitive advantage that flows to other offerors from knowing the awardee’s price.
PREA is represented by Alan Grayson. The agency is represented by William Robinson and Monica Barron of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.
