Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Too Late to the Party: Federal Circuit Decision an Object Lesson in Why Awardees Should Intervene in Bid Protests ASAP • So You Prevailed in a Protest, But GAO’s Recommended Corrective Action Is Moot. Now What? • Back to Basics: Price Realism vs. Price Reasonableness • No Harm, No Foul: GAO Reminds Protesters that Competitive Prejudice Must Be Shown When the Agency Waives a Material Solicitation Requirement • FAA’s “No-Protest” Clause Struck Down

Published on September 3, 2024 • Law

Interesting Arguments From an Uninterested Party: GAO Denies Protests From an Ineligible Protester

VIMA photos | Shutterstock

The protester challenged the cancellation of an invitation for bids. GAO said the protester was not an interested party because its bid had already been rejected as ineligible.

Hamilton Pacific Chamberlain, LLC, GAO B-422568.2

Protest Argument- The protester contended that cancellation of the solicitation violated the FAR and that if the agency were to proceed, the only reasonable outcome would be award to the protester.
Ineligibility - GAO maintained that the agency had properly found the protester ineligible because the protester's initial proposal failed to include a signed certification. Even if GAO sustained the protest, the protester would still be ineligible award. GAO dismissed the protest because the protester was not an interested party.

The protester was represented by P. Sean Milani-nia and David Timm of Fox Rothschild LLP The agency was represented by Brian R. Reed. Heather Weiner, Dylan T. Silver, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

GAO - Hamilton Pacific

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.