The protester filed supplemental protests drawn from improperly redacted portions of the agency report. The agency sought to dismiss the protest because they were based on information clearly not intended to be disseminated. The protester argued the situation was like inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. GAO found the protester’s actions undermined the bid protest process and dismissed it.
BBGSRO Construction S.R.L., GAO B-423091; B-423091.2
- Protest – The agency issued a solicitation for design and construction services to provide explosives and ammunition loading and unloading apron with safety setbacks and taxiways in Romania. The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of the proposals and the agency’s conduct of discussions. Although not all arguments were addressed in the decision, GAO considered all of them and found no basis to sustain a protest.
- Grounds from Improper Redaction – Before discussing the merits, GAO addressed supplemental protest grounds that the protester obtained from improperly redacted portions of the agency report. The black, redacted portions were searchable and circumventable by copying and pasting into a Word document. The agency asked GAO to dismiss any supplemental claims that were based on information clearly not intended to be disseminated. The protester equated the situation to inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.
- Decision: GAO reserved the inherent right to dismiss any protest where the protester’s actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the process. Here, GAO found the protester’s actions undermining and inconsistent with the integrity of the office’s bid protest process and dismissed the supplemental protest grounds.
- Conduct of Discussions – The protester claimed the agency’s discussions were not meaningful or equal because the agency failed to provide it the same amount of time as other offerors to submit its revised proposal. Competing offerors were afforded 10 days while the protester only 7. GAO acknowledged the agency’s unequal treatment. However, the protest was now untimely since the protester failed to raise this protest before or immediately after submitting their revised proposal.
- Other Protests – The protester also challenged the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance, management approach evaluation, and technical evaluation. GAO found the agency’s evaluation of these reasonable and in line with the terms of the solicitation.
The protester was represented by Lawrence J. Sklute of Sklute & Associates. The intervenor was represented by William F. Savarino, Rhina M. Cardenal, and John O’Brien of Cordatis LLP. The agency was represented by Regina Schowalter of the Army. Kasia Dourney, Michelle E. Litteken, and Alexander O. Levine of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
