Proxima Studio | Shutterstock

The protester argued the agency should be estopped from proceeding with an award to another bidder. The protester contended it had detrimentally relied on the agency’s promise to cancel the solicitation. GAO dismissed. The protester’s detrimental reliance claim did not allege a violation of procurement law. 

Global Engineering Services, LLC, GAO B-421866 
  • The Award – The agency issued an invitation for bids. Multiple bidders responded. The agency, however, didn’t make an award during the 60-day bid acceptance period. After the 60 days passed, the agency asked the protester to confirm its price. The protester submitted a revised bid that raised its price. The agency awarded the contract to another bidder that didn’t raise its price. 
  • Protest Argument – The protester challenged the award, arguing the agency should be estopped from awarding the contract to the other bidder. The protester contended it had detrimentally relied on the contracting officer’s representation that the agency would cancel the solicitation and resolicit if the protester raised its prices. 
  • Interested Party – GAO found the protester wasn’t an interested party. A bidder is ineligible for award after its bid expires. The protester’s bid expired after 60 days. While bidders can grant an extension of their bid, they cannot revise their original bid while granting the extension. Here, the protester had revised its original bid, rendering the expired bid invalid. 
  • Promissory Estoppel – Additionally, GAO could not grant the remedy the protester sought. GAO is only authorized to hear protests alleging a violation of a procurement statute or regulation. The protester’s detrimental reliance argument was not founded on an alleged procurement violation. 

The protester is represented by Jonathan D. Perrone and Hay Kyung Chang Lanteigne of Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C. The agency is represented by Marcia A. McCree of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR