The protester’s CEO filed a pro se protest. GAO dismissed part of the protest as legally insufficient. The protester engaged counsel who tried to salvage the protester’s argument in a request for reconsideration. But GAO said it wouldn’t allow the protester to shoehorn a new argument into a request for reconsideration.
DPRA, Inc.–Reconsideration, GAO B-521592.2
- Pro Se Protest – The protester’s CEO filed a pro se protest challenging an award. The protest objected to the awardee’s low risk rating under the technical factor. The protester reasoned that as the non-incumbent, the awardee should not have received the same low risk rating as the protester, who was the incumbent. The protester also claimed the awardee’s price was unrealistic.
- Protester Engages Counsel – The agency requested dismissal of the protest. Shortly before response to the request for dismissal was due, the protester engaged counsel. The protester’s counsel then filed a legal memorandum in response to the dismissal request with accompanying declarations.
- Protest Dismissed and Denied – GAO dismissed the challenge to the technical evaluation. GAO found the technical challenge legally insufficient. GAO then denied the price realism challenge, reasoning the agency properly evaluated the awardee’s professional compensation.
- Reconsideration of Technical Challenge – The protester asked GAO to reconsider its challenge to the technical evaluation. The protester argued its challenge was based on reasonable and credible inferences drawn from its incumbent experience. The protester also contended GAO had ignored declarations submitted in support of the response to the agency’s request for dismissal.
- GAO Declines to Reconsider Technical Challenge – As an initial matter, GAO opined its decision to ignore the declarations was reasonable. The declarations could have been filed with the initial protest. They were only filed after the request for dismissal and after the protester engaged counsel. GAO will not consider a piecemeal presentation of a protest. More importantly, GAO noted the argument asserted in the CEO’s initial protest differed from the grounds asserted in the request for reconsideration. The protest challenged the awardee’s law risk rating based on the protester’s low risk rating. The argument on reconsideration argued the awardee lacked experience. GAO refused to allow the protester to shoehorn a new argument into the protest.
- GAO Declines to Reconsider Realism Challenge – As to the realism challenge, GAO found the request for reconsideration merely repeated arguments raised in the protest.
The protester is represented by Ronald Perlman of Holland & Knight LLP. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
