The sales agent for a contractor filed a protest challenging the issuance of a solicitation. The agent argued that instead of competing the requirement, the agency should have procured goods directly from the contractor. GAO dismissed the protest because the agent was not an interested party. An agent can file a protest on behalf of a contractor if they have been specifically authorized to file protests. Here, the agent had only been authorized to “interact” with the government; it had not been explicitly authorized to file protests.
RJH Supply, LLC, GAO B-420998
Background
The Navy posted a solicitation for replacement of wayfinding signage. RJH Supply filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. RJH was the authorized sales agent of another company, UNICOR. RJH argued that the Navy should have procured its requirement directly from UNICOR.
Analysis
GAO found that RJH was not an interested party to pursue a protest. On their own, a sales agent is generally not an interested party to file a protest simply because they would receive a sales commission from the contract. But an agent may represent an interested party in a protest where it has been authorized to file protests on behalf of that party.
Here, RJH’s agreement with UNICOR allowed RJH to interact with the government on behalf of UNICOR concerning sales of signage. But this authorization made no specific reference to bid protests of other litigation.
Moreover, while RJH would potentially receive a commission from sales to UNICOR, these commissions were too remote of an an economic interest to give the company standing.
RJH is represented by Robert Hoffman. The agency is represented by Ann L. Giddings and Kyle P. Symanowitz of the Navy. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Evan D. Wesser participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig Lachance, Senior Editor
