The protester contended that the agency should have found the awardee non-responsible. It further claimed the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s past performance. Under GAO regulations, responsibility determinations are generally not reviewed unless serious concerns are raised. In this case, GAO found the protester’s allegations insufficient to trigger such a review, ultimately dismissing the protest.
Fed Serve, LLC, GAO B-423526; B-423526.2
- Background – The agency issued a request for proposals (RFP) for construction services at Minot Air Force Base. After the agency awarded the contract to the awardee, the protester submitted a protest, seeking to challenge the responsibility determination and the past performance evaluation.
- Responsibility Determination – The protester argued that the awardee was not a responsible offeror due to alleged licensing issues and contract breaches. GAO generally does not reevaluate agency determinations of responsibility unless there are serious allegations of misconduct or overlooked information. GAO found that the contracting officer had conducted a thorough evaluation of the awardee’s qualifications and that the protester failed to produce evidence that met the high standard for review. Thus, GAO dismissed this argument.
- Past Performance Evaluation – The protester claimed the agency unreasonably rated the awardee’s past performance too high. However, the protester relied only on speculative assertions and did not sufficiently detail the awardee’s actual past performance records as evaluated by the agency. Thus, GAO dismissed the protest.
The protester is represented by Jonathan Shaffer, Esq., and John M. Tanner, Esq., of Haynes and Boone, LLP. The intervenor, OK2 Construction, LLC, is represented by Michael J. Farr, Esq., Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Craig M. Brunson, Esq., of the Department of the Air Force. The government is represented by Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., of the Office of the General Counsel, GAO.
