Protest challenging the protester’s exclusion from the competitive range is dismissed as untimely, where the agency excluded the protester’s proposal based on its high price, but the protester initially challenged the agency’s technical evaluation, and did not argue that the agency’s exclusion of its proposal based on price alone was unreasonable until it filed comments on the agency report.
Allard Nazarian Group d/b/a Granite State Manufacturing protested the Navy’s decision to exclude it proposal from the competitive range for a procurement for anti-submarine warfare combat systems.
GSM’s proposal was evaluated as unacceptable. In the competitive range determination, the contracting officer stated that GSM’s price was so significantly high that it could not be expected to lower its price during negotiations and therefore it would not be included within the competitive range. During a debriefing, the agency explained to GMS that it concluded that its proposal did not have a reasonable chance for award.
GSM protested, challenging its exclusion from the competitive range, alleging disparate treatment, and arguing that the agency’s evaluation of various aspects of another competitor’s proposal was flawed.
In challenging its exclusion from the competitive range, the protester’s initial and supplemental filings challenged the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiency assessed by the agency to its proposal. In response, the agency noted that GSM’s protest focused on alleged errors in the technical evaluation, but failed to address its exorbitant price, which the agency explained was the reason for its exclusion from the competitive range. In its comments on the agency report, GMS argued for the first time that the agency’s exclusion of its proposal on the basis of price alone was unreasonable.
GAO found this allegation untimely. GMS knew of the basis for its exclusion from the competitive range, but did not challenge the agency’s determination until more than a month after its debriefing, when it filed its comments on the agency report. Because GMS waited more than 10 days after it knew, or should have known, of the basis for its protest, GAO found its challenge was untimely.
Because the protest grounds challenging GMS’s exclusion from the competitive range was dismissed, GAO found that the protester had no standing to bring its other arguments, as it had no chance for award, even if they were successful.
Granite State Manufacturing is represented by Ronald K. Henry, David Hibey, Craig A. Schwartz, and Alexandra L. Barbee-Garrett of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The government is represented by David B. Mercier and Emilia Muche Thompson, Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
