I Withdrew My Proposal. Is the Agency Still Required to Give Me a Debriefing?

The protester in this case withdrew its proposal before award. Nevertheless, the protester requested and received a debriefing. GAO found that the protest filed after the debriefing was untimely. A required debriefing will extend the protest deadline. The problem here was the protester was not entitled to a required debriefing. A debriefing is only required when requested by an unsuccessful offeror. By withdrawing its proposal, the protester was no longer an offeror, much less an unsuccessful offeror. The debriefing it received was a courtesy that did not extend the protest deadline.

U.S. Marine Management, Inc., GAO B-420469

Background

The Navy issued an RFP seeking a tanker vessel. U.S. Marine Management submitted three proposals in response, each proposing a different vessel. Following an initial round of discussions, Marine Management withdrew one of its proposals. The Navy then determined that its other two proposals should not be included in the competitive range. 

The Navy awarded the contract to Crowley Government Services. Marine Management requested and received a debriefing on the proposal it had withdrawn. Several days after receiving the debriefing, Marine Management filed a protest challenging the price and technical evaluation and alleging the Navy relaxed solicitation requirements.

Legal Analysis

• Marine Management Was Not Interested Party to Challenge Technical and Price Evaluation – Marine Management was not an interested party to challenge the technical and price evaluations because its proposals had been included in the final competitive range. If GAO were to sustain the protest, its recommendation would be to for the agency reevaluate proposals. But Marine Management had submitted unacceptable proposals and had not challenged the evaluation of its own proposals. Even if the agency re-evaluated, Marine Management would not be in line for award.
• Marine Management’s Reaming Protest Was Untimely – Aside from the challenge to the technical and price evaluation, Marine Management alleged the agency relaxed solicitation requirements for Crowley. GAO found that Marine Management was an interested party to raise this argument because if such a protest were sustained, GAO would recommend the agency revise the solicitation and accept revised proposals. The problem was that Marine’s protest was untimely. Marine claimed its protest had been timely filed after its debriefing. Only a required debriefing, however, extends the time for filing a protest. To get a required debriefing, a protester must have been an unsuccessful offeror. Here, Marine Management received a debriefing on the proposal it withdrew. By withdrawing the proposal, Marine Management was no longer an offeror, much less an unsuccessful offeror. The company was not entitled to a required debriefing. The debriefing it received was a courtesy that did not extend the protest deadline.

Marine Management is represented by Robert E. Korroch, Anthony A. Anikeef, and Lauren N. Pennington of Williams Mullen. The intervenor, Crowley, is represented by James Y. Boland, Lindsay M. Reed, and Allison M. Siegel of Venable, LLP. The agency is represented by Ann C. Calabrese of the Navy. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.