Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is dismissed, where the agency had commenced but not yet completed discussions before the protester filed its challenge.
Celeris Systems Inc. protested the Navy’s award of an engineering and technical support services task order to INDUS Technology Inc., arguing the agency had misevaluated its proposal.
GAO dismissed the protest, as the agency had not yet completed discussions. According to its protest filing, Celeris’ debriefing began on September 24, 2018. Celeris submitted questions to the agency on September 26 and filed its protest on September 28. However, the Navy explained that as of October 2, it had not yet answered the protester’s discussion questions.
Celeris argued that October was the agency’s deadline to respond, and therefore discussions were concluded, regardless of the agency’s response. Further, Celeris argued that the protest should not be dismissed because the incomplete debriefing involved extended debriefing procedures. According to Celeris, the agency’s obligation to answer its discussion questions should not delay its ability to file a protest or obtain a stay in performance.
However, GAO found the protest was premature, because the debriefing process had not concluded.
Celeris Systems Inc. is represented by Bryan B. Arnold of Gordee, Nowicki & Blakeney, LLP. INDUS Technology is represented by Richard B. Oliver, and J. Matthew Carter, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The government is represented by Robert Jusko, Trenton J. Bowen, and James C. Brent, Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
