The protester thought discussions could have been clearer. GAO said the protester’s argument was essentially that the agency should’ve told the protester it could lower its price. GAO reasoned such advice would have been improper spoon-feeding.
Halvik Corporation, GAO B-421567.3, B-421567.4
- Misleading Discussions – During discussions, the agency advised the protester its price was low compared to the government estimate. The protester raised its rates. But the protester contended the agency’s statement caused it to raise its rates too much. The protester thought the agency should have advised that the protester could lower its price. GAO rejected the argument. The agency’s statement was accurate and anodyne. The agency did not say the protester’s prices were unreasonably low or unacceptable. It wasn’t the agency’s fault that the protester used that information to its detriment. The agency was not required to explicitly tell the protester it could lower its price.
- Unequal Discussions – The agency initially awarded the contract to the protester. Following a protest and corrective action, the agency selected the awardee. But after the first award, as part of a debriefing, the agency gave the awardee a redacted copy of the source selection decision. The protester argued this amounted to unequal discussions. The protester claimed the awardee used the redacted decision to erase the protester’s competitive advantage. GAO found this argument was untimely. The protester knew the awardee had the redacted decision before the corrective action. It should have filed a protest before the agency accepted revised proposals.
- Cost Realism – The protester challenged the cost realism evaluation. The protester thought the agency should have adjusted the awardee’s rates. GAO found the evaluation was reasonable. And even if the agency adjusted the awardee’s rates, the protester would have still had a higher price. Thus, the protester had not been prejudiced.
The protester is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of Brittin Law Group, PLLC and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Dunlap, Bennet & Ludwig PLLC. The awardee is represented by Jeffrey M. Chiow, Eleanor M. Ross, and Shirin Afsous of the Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The agency is represented by Erika L. Whelan-Retta and Josephine R. Farinelli of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Kyle E. Gilbertson and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
