Protest is dismissed as untimely. The protester alleged that a task order awarded to another contractor was outside the scope of that contractor’s IDIQ contract. The protest, however, was filed more than ten days after the protester knew the agency was going to issue the task order. The protester contended the protest was timely because the company did not “definitively” know the agency would issue the task order until the agency actually issued the order. But GAO found the protester had possessed enough information to file a protest before the order was issued.
Background
The Department of Labor (DOL) had two different IDIQ contracts with two different contractors, one with Magnum Multimedia and another with Insignia Federal Group. Magnum’s contract was set to expire in September 2021. On August 25, 2021, the agency informed Magnum that it was going to issue a task order to Insignia for the work that Magnum had been performing under its IDIQ contract. Magnum took actions to transition out of the contract.
About a month later, DOL amended Insignia's IDIQ contract and issued a task order to Insignia for the work Magnum had been performing. Magnum filed a protest arguing that the new task order was outside the scope of Insignia’s IDIQ contract
Legal Analysis
- Protest Was Untimely -- A GAO protest must be filed within 10 days of when the protester knows or should have known the basis of its protest. Here, Magnum knew DOL was going to award Insignia a task order on August 25. Magnum, however, did not file a protest challenging the task order until a month later.
- “Definitive” Knowledge of Protest Grounds Is Not Required -- Magnum alleged its protest was timely because it did not definitively know DOL would issue the task order until DOL posted notice of the order in September 2021. But a protester need not have perfect knowledge before filing a protest. On August 25, Magnum knew that DOL was going to award a task order to Isignia, and it knew the type of work that was going to be performed. The company possessed enough knowledge to file a protest.
Magnum is represented by Isaias “Cy” Alba, IV, Katherine B. Burrows, Lauren R. Brier, and Meghan F. Leemon of PilieroMazza PLLC. The intervenor, Insignia, is represented by Jon W. Burd, of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Robert Proudfoot and Jose Otero of the Department of Labor. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
Magnum Multimedia