The protester challenged the agency’s decision to exercise an option on another company’s contract. Instead of exercising an option, the protester argued, the agency should have competed the requirement. But GAO found the protester was ineligible when the contract was first awarded. And, despite efforts to become eligible, the protester still lacked the required security clearance.
Win Aviation, Inc., GAO B-422037, B-422037.2
- Initial Rejection – The solicitation required offerors to have Secret Facility Clearance. The protester did not have the required clearance. The agency eliminated the protester and awarded the contract to another company.
- Protest – A year later, the agency exercised an option under the awardee’s contract. The protester filed a protest. The protester argued the agency should have competed the requirement instead of exercising the option.
- Protester Was Not Interested Party – GAO dismissed. The protester was not an interested party. The protester still did not have the required clearance. The protester claimed it had partnered with another company that had clearance. But the clearance requirement had to be met by the prime contractor. The protester argued the agency should provide time to obtain clearance after award. The contractor, however, had not shown it could obtain clearance after award. Even if GAO sustained, the contractor was still not eligible.
The protester is represented by James M. Whie of Marshall & White, PC. The awardee is represented by Erin L. Felix and Gregory S. Jacobs of Polsinelli PC. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon and Major Candice D. Schubbe of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
