The protester objected to the elimination of its proposal, alleging a latent ambiguity regarding key personnel. The protester also argued the contracting officer unreasonably conducted discussions from a noisy ball game. GAO rejected both arguments..
Ashton Marine Company, GAO B-422634
- Latent Ambiguity - The solicitation required offerors to provide "[a] current copy of the Key personnel resume and letter of commitment. Refer to the Scope of work, for the requirements of a Stone Material Control Supervisor." The protester argued this provision was ambiguous because it did not define "key personnel" or whose letter of commitment was required. GAO wasn't convinced. The provision referred o the scope of work, which in turn defined "key personnel" as a "Stone Material Control Field Supervisor."
- Noisy Discussions - The protester argued oral discussions were not meaningful because the discussions occurred while the contracting officer was attending a noisy outdoor event without access to the contract file. But the awardee's discussions, the protester contended, took place under ideal conditions. GAO found the discussions were reasonable and equal because the contracting officer conveyed the same information to both offerors.
The protester was represented by David A. Rose of Rose Consulting Law Firm. The agency was represented by Ian McDaniel of the Army. Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
GAO - Ashton Marine