Protest of an award following a re-solicitation is denied. In light of a protest, the agency took corrective action to re-solicit an RFQ. The agency ended up awarding the contract to the same company that had received the initial award. The protester argued that the agency had afforded the awardee an unfair competitive advantage by allowing it to bid twice on the RFQ. The court disagreed, reasoning that the agency could not have excluded the awardee form the re-solicitation because it would violated CICA’s mandate of free and open competition. The protester also argued the awardee had an unfair advantage because it knew its price had been the lowest in the initial competition. But the court did not see how this knowledge conferred a competitive advantage given that all the vendors knew the awardee’s price after it was disclosed as part of the initial award.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) awarded a contract for monitor and caregiver services to Coastal Clinical & Management Services, Inc. Shortly after receiving award, Coastal notified CBP that it made a mistake in its proposal (the nature of which is redacted in the decision) and could perform the contract as awarded. Coastal asked CBP to terminate the contract for convenience. On the same day that Coastal requested termination, an unsuccessful vendor, Glocoms, Inc., filed a protest with GAO challenging the award to Coastal. Â In light of the protest and the request to terminate, CBP decided to take corrective action and resolicit.
CBP issued a new RFQ. Six vendors, including Coastal and Glocoms, submitted quotes. CBP again awarded the contract to Coastal, finding that it had submitted the lowest-priced technically-acceptable proposal. Glocoms filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims challenging the award.
Glocoms argued that CBP had afforded Coastal an unfair competitive advantage by allowing the Coastal two opportunities to bid on the RFQ. But the court noted that CBP re-solicited the RFQ as part of a corrective action following a protest. CBP could not have excluded Coastal, or any other vendor, from bidding because the Competition in Contracting Act requires full and open competition. The record showed that CBP treated all vendors equally, allowing them to all submit quotes and, for those that bid on the initial solicitation, to adjust their prices.
Glocoms also contended that CBP gave Coastal an unfair competitive advantage because Coastal knew its competitors’ proposed prices for the initial solicitation were higher than Coastal’s own quote. The court did not believe this knowledge provided an advantage. In fact, all the vendors in the re-solicitation knew Coastal’s initial proposed price after it was disclosed following the original award.
Glocoms further claimed that it had been prejudiced by CBP’s failure to respond to questions the company had asked. Before submitting its proposal, Glocoms emailed CBP with questions about labor rates and categories. CBP did not respond. The court did not see how the failure to respond had prejudiced Glocoms. Indeed, CBP had not provided wage and labor category information to any of the vendors. What’s more, Glocoms had not shown how having this information would have improved its chances of receiving award.
Lastly, Glocoms claimed that Coastal’s quote was technically unacceptable because it violated the Service Contract Act and an executive order. The court reasoned that even if it agreed such compliance issues were present, it was a matter of contract administration beyond the court’s bid protest jurisdiction.
Glocoms is represented by Sheridan L. England of S.L. England, PLLC. The government is represented by Sosun Bae, Elizabeth M. Hosford, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., and Joseph H. Hunt of the Department of Justice.
