Share:
GAO denied a protest. The protester requested reconsideration, arguing that GAO’s decision contravened a recent COFC decision. GAO dismissed the request, reasoning it was not bound by COFC decisions. Moreover, the protester had not elaborated on the nature of the alleged legal issue, and, in any event, the COFC decision was distinguishable in that it involved a pre-award protest, not a post-award challenge.
4K Global-ACC JV, LLC–Reconsideration, GAO B-423092.2
- Background – The protester was a disappointed offeror for a solicitation for building repairs. GAO previously denied its protest because the firm’s project labor agreement (PLA) did not comply with the FAR. The protester had argued that its PLA met the applicable requirements because the FAR provision did not require a “signed PLA,” but only a draft PLA that an awardee would later negotiate with an unspecified labor organization or organizations.
- Request – The protester argued GAO’s prior decision contained an error of law because a COFC decision, MVL USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 437 (2025) “struck down the mandate of President Biden’s Executive Order 14063 regarding the [PLA] requirement.”
- Decision – GAO explained that while its office traditionally gives careful consideration to COFC decisions, it is not bound by them. Furthermore, the requester merely stated there was an error of law “in light of the MVL USA, Inc. opinion” without elaborating on the nature of the “error of law.” Finally, GAO disagreed that the COFC opinion applied since it involved a pre-award protest while the instant protest was filed after the award.
The requester was represented by Joey R. Floyd of Bruner, Powell, Wall & Mullins, LLC. The agency was represented by Phillip T. Paradise 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.
Share:
