The protester and the agency disagreed about the meaning of a solicitation term. GAO found the protester had the better argument. Indeed, the agency’s own internal guidance jibed with the protester’s interpretation.
BOF GA Lenox Park, LLC, GAO B-421522
- Interested Party – The agency said the protester was ineligible and thus not an interested party. The solicitation required offerors to register with SAM. The protester wasn’t registered with SAM. But GAO found the protester was an interested party. The agency had only evaluated the awardee for acceptability. GAO will not dismiss for lack of interested party status where the agency has not evaluated other offerors’ acceptability.
- Interpretation of “Bus Rapid Transit Stop” – The solicitation sought a lease within the vicinity of a “bus rapid transit stop”. The protester argued a bus rapid transit stop refers to a bus that uses dedicated lanes. The agency argued the solicitation did not define a rapid transit stop and that a standard bus line qualified as a rapid transit stop. GAO said the agency’s interpretation was wrong. The agency’s own guidance defined a bus rapid transit as a bus line with dedicated lanes. The awardee’s property was not adjacent to a rapid transit stop. GAO sustained the protest.
The protester is represented by Gordon Griffin, Hillary J. Freund, and Richard Ariel of Holland & Knight LLP. The awardee is represented by Seamus Curley of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. The agency is represented by Benjamin D. Lorber of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Kasia Dourney and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
