The protester had voluntarily withdrawn their pre-award protest, but then filed a post-award protest, asserting many of the same contentions raised in the pre-award protest. Although the arguments raised in the pre-award had been timely, they were no longer valid after the award. GAO dismissed.
Alamo City Engineering Services, Inc., GAO B-422901.2
- Protest – The agency issued an order for brand name information technology (IT) services. The protester challenged the award, arguing that the solicitation included unduly restrictive requirements and that the awardee was pre-selected.
- Unduly Restrictive Requirements – The protester revived its pre-award protest argument that the agency failed to justify the requirement for a brand-name product. Although that argument had been timely raised in the pre-award protest, the protester voluntarily withdrew that protest. GAO found the protest ground was untimely after the award and dismissed it. Furthermore, the protest ignored plain language in the solicitation that explained the agency’s justification.
- Qualified Source – The protester alleged it had been wrongfully “eliminated as a qualified source” due to not holding a DOD ESI BPA. The challenge was based on the agency’s email stating its RFQ was for DOD ESI vendors. GAO observed that the protester was required to raise this protest ground within 10 days of the email. Because this argument was raised well beyond the 10-day fraom, this ground was also dismissed as untimely.
The protester was represented by Bradley D. Newberry of Alamo City Engineering Services, Inc. The intervenor was represented by Pamela Marple and Christopher O’Brien of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The agency was represented by Ashley M. Kelly of the Defense Logistics Agency. Heather Self and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
