The protester’s proposal was ineligible, but the company still filed a protest, arguing that the offerors’ proposals were also ineligible. Specifically, it claimed they lacked licenses and descriptions of how they planned to comply with specific laws and regulations. GAO found these were matters of contract administration outside the scope of its bid protest review.
Wave Digital Assets, LLC, GAO B-423217; B-423217.2
- Protest – The protester challenged the award of a contract for assistance in “managing and disposing of [seized/forfeited] cryptocurrency assets.” Although the protester’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable, the protester maintained that the awardee’s proposal should have been rejected because it failed to demonstrate possession of federal and state licenses.
- No Eligible Proposals – The protester believed offerors were required to have certain licenses and should have been required to affirmatively demonstrate how they will comply with specific laws and regulations. The protester reasoned that because the agency did not receive any such proposal, the agency must resolicit its requirements. GAO found that the solicitation provisions that required licenses and compliance with applicable laws and regulations were matters of contract administration, which put it outside the scope of its bid protest review.
- Reasonable Ratings – Furthermore, the agency assessed a high confidence rating to the protester’s response concerning subsequent compliance with specific laws and regulations. The other offerors received a lower “some confidence” because they primarily identified the potential application of various laws and regulations, while the protester specifically stated, among other things, that it had registered with the SEC as an investment advisor. GAO found these ratings reasonable, and the agency did not need to find the other offerors’ proposals unacceptable, as the lower “some confidence” sufficed.
The protester was represented by Shane J. McCall, Nicole D. Pottroff, John L. Holtz, Gregory P. Weber, Stephanie L. Ellis, and Annie E. Birney of Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC. The intervenor was represented by Francis E. Purcell Jr. and Joseph R. Berger of Thompson Hine LLP. The agency was represented by C. Joseph Carroll, Samantha Davis, Shandora Acrey, and Jonathan E. O’Connell of DOJ. Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
