The protester contended the solicitation gave the incumbent an unfair advantage. GAO denied. An incumbent’s advantage is only improper when it results from improper agency action. Here, there was no evidence of improper action. The incumbent simply had the natural advantage of incumbency.
Active Deployment Systems, LLC, GAO B-422424
- Incomplete Information – The protester challenged the terms of a Customs and Border Patrol solicitation. The solicitation sought temporary facilities to detain individuals. The protester said the solicitation was missing material information concerning current site conditions. But GAO thought the soliciation contained enough information. The solicitation had a site plan and drawings of the layout. Moreover, the solicitation required a site visit. If the solicitation lacked detail, offerors could fill the void with the in-person visit.
- Unduly Restrictive – The protester argued the task order would only have a month ordering period and 32 one-month options. The protester reasoned this unpredictable ordering period would disincentivize offerors. GAO disagreed. The agency had a legitimate need for the ordering period. What’s more, several other companies submitted quotations, indicating they had not been discouraged from bidding.
- Incumbent Preference – The protester argued the solicitation favored the incumbent. The solicitation required offerors to mobilize an encampment while facilities were being built. But the incumbent would be able to use its preexisting encampment. GAO didn’t see a problem. An agency is not required to equalize an incumbent advantage. An incumbent advantage is only improper when there is evidence of preferential treatment or other improper agency actions. Here, there was no evidence of preferential treatment. Rather, the incumbent’s advantage was simply the natural advantage of incumbency.
The protester is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox II, Ian P. Patterson, and Timothy J. Laughlin of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC. The intervenor is represented by Olivia L. Lynch, James G. Peyster, and Roxanne N. Cassidy of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Joseph M. Barbato of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
