Protest challenging agency’s corrective actions is dismissed. The agency took corrective action to allow a previously rejected offeror back into the competition to conduct discussions with that offeror. The protester contended that it was improper for the agency to conduct discussions with the offeror. GAO found that a pre-award protest challenging discussions was premature. Any objection the protester had to the conduct of discussions could only be appropriately raised after the award decision.
The Navy awarded a task order for program management, acquisition support, and engineering services to Alion Science and Technology Corporation. ICI Services Corporation, an unsuccessful offeror, protested. ICI argued that Alion had sold it naval systems business to another company, so its proposal did not properly reflect the entity that would perform the contract. In response to the protest, the Navy took corrective action to review its source selection decision.
Shortly after taking corrective action, the Navy excluded Alion from award of the task order. Alion filed a protest challenging its exclusion. In response to Alion’s protest, the Navy took corrective action to include Alion’s proposal in those still eligible for award and to conduct discussions with Alion.
Upon learning that Alion was back in the competition, ICI filed another protest challenging the Navy’s corrective action. ICI claimed that allowing Alion back in and conducting discussions with the company was unfair because it would allow Alion to engage in negotiations even though it lacked the requisite assets to perform the contract and could not bind the party that now controlled those assets.
GAO declined to review ICI’s protest. When an agency has yet to make an award decision, challenges to an agency’s conduct of discussions are premature. Indeed, GAO reasoned, the Navy may select ICI for award in which case its protest would be moot. If ICI did not receive the award, it could challenge the discussions in a protest of the award decision.
ICI is represented by Shomari B. Wade, Michael J. Gardner, Timothy J. Jessell, Danielle K. Muenzfeld and Brett A. Castallat of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The intervenor, Alion, is represented by Daniel R. Forman, Mark A. Ries, and James G. Peyster of Crowell & Moring. The agency is represented by Sabrina Hay, Gwendolyn Iaci, and William A. Longwell of the Navy. GAO attorneys Louis A. Chiarella and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
