Protest challenging the terms of an amended solicitation is dismissed. The protester argued that the agency had relaxed certain cybersecurity requirements to favor another offeror. Basically, the protester was alleging that based on its view of the agency’s needs, the solicitation needed to be more restrictive. GAO, however, will not review a protest that merely seeks to protect the interest a protester may have in more restrictive requirements.
The IRS issued a solicitation seeking an Enterprise Case Management solution. The solicitation contemplated a two phase evaluation. Eight vendors responded to the solicitation, but only two, Appian Corporation and immixTechnology Inc., moved on to the second phase. Following the second phase evaluation, the IRS awarded the contract to immixTechnology. The agency found Appian’s proposal technically unacceptable. Appian filed a protest with GAO. In response to the protest, the IRS took corrective to reassess its requirements.
Following the reassessment, the IRS issues an amended solicitation that revised some requirements. The previous version of the solicitation had required that all software component be certified under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) at the time quotes were submitted. The amended solicitation, however, only required that only cloud components be FedRAMP certified. Additionally, the amended solicitation provided that offerors did not have to have FISMA certification at the time proposals were submitted.
Appian filed a second protest, challenging the terms of the solicitation. Appian alleged that by removing the requirements for FedRAMP and FISMA certification at the time of proposal submission, the IRS was unreasonably relaxing the solicitation’s cybersecurity requirements. Appian asserted that the IRS had changed these requirements because immixTechnology could not satisfy them.
GAO refused to consider this argument. GAO reviews bid protests to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements for full and open competition, not to protest any interest a protester may have in more restrictive specifications. In this case, Appian was essentially arguing that it based on it view of the government’s needs, the solicitation needed to be more restrictive. GAO was having none of it.
Appian is represented by Daniel R. Forman and James G. Peyster of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, immixTechnology, is represented by J. Hunter Bennett, Jason A. Carey, and Andrew R. Guy of Covington & Burling LLP. The agency is represented by Richard L. Hatfield, Holly H. Styles and Gregory J. Matherne of the Department of Treasury. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards, Mary G. Curcio, and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
