Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Phase One Fizzle: Protester’s Past Performance Doesn’t Make the Cut • Shipping Container Set-Aside Sinks: Was the Agency’s Market Research All at Sea? • “Let’s Just Agree to Never Speak of this Again”: ASBCA Refuses to Bury Decision as Condition of Settlement • RFO Consolidation Limitations Do Not Apply to BPAs, Says GAO • CAS Board Publishes Final Rule Rescinding CAS 404, 408, 409, and 4117

Published on September 24, 2024 • Law

If You’re Going to Claim the Awardee Violated the Solicitation’s Font Requirements, Make Sure the Font in Your Own Proposal Complied

CGN089 | Shutterstock

The protester argued that awardee's proposal violated the solicitation's font size restrictions giving it an unfair advantage. The court conclude the protester had not been prejudiced because the protester's proposal also violated the font requirements.

Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation v. United States, et al., Fed. Cl., No. 24-1193C

GAO Protest - The solicitation stated that text in a proposal must be formatted with a minimum size of 12-point font, but 8-point font is allowed for illustrative exhibits like tables, charts, graphs, and figures. The protester filed a GAO protest, alleging the awardee attempted to circumvent the font size requirement by abusing the 8-point exception because approximately 50 percent of the awardee's proposal was charts, graphs, etc. in 8-point font. GAO had already concluded that the solicoitation did not limit the content that could be included in the exhibits.
COFC Protest - The protest filed a second protest with COFC. As part of its protest, the protester requested a preliminary injunction.
Lack of Prejudice- The court disagreed with GAO's interpretation of the solicitation. The solicitation did not allow offerors complete freedom to use charts and tables to circumvent the font requirements. But this finding didn't help the protester because the protester's proposal also relied heavily on charts and graphs with 8-point font. Thus, the protester could not show it had been prejudiced by the agency's failure to enforce the font requirements.
Denial of Entire Protest - The court denied the protester's request for preliminary injunction. Due to the absence of prejudice, the court concluded the protester was unlikely to prevail on the merits. Indeed, because the protester could not succeed on the merits, the court simply entered judgment for the government and denied the protest outright.

The protester was represented by Jeremy S. Scholtes, Roger V. Abbott, and Lauren S. Fleming of Miles & Stockbridge, PC. The agency was represented by Steven M. Mager, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Douglas K. Mickle of DOJ. The intervenor was represented by Ryan C. Bradel of Ward & Berry PLLC.

-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.