Protester Thought the Agency Report Contained Threats. GAO Didn’t See It that Way.

A protester requested reconsideration of its denied protest. The protester took issue with errors that allegedly transpired during the protest development and decision process. Among these was a claim that the agency had threatened “adverse action” on “future contract considerations.” GAO reviewed the language and found it to be merely common evaluation principles.

High Plains Computing, Inc.–d/b/a HPC Solutions–Reconsideration, GAO B-422934.2

• Reconsideration – GAO denied the protest of a task order award for information technology support services. The protester requested reconsideration of the decision, alleging various events that allegedly transpired during the protest development and the decision.
• Threats – The protester complained that statements in the agency report threatened adverse action against the protester on future contracts. For example, the report stated, “an offeror has the burden of submitting a clearly written proposal, and where a proposal fails to clearly convey required information, the offeror runs the risk of an adverse Agency evaluation.” GAO did not find this, or any other example, to be inappropriate language.
• Unauthorized Third Party – The protester contended GAO failed to take action after the agency released its “official protest correspondence to an unauthorized third party.” Instead, GAO had responded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain this issue when the correspondence was “addressed to GAO.” GAO dismissed this argument as the requester did not assert the release of information related to the award or proposed award of the contract.
• Untimely Dismissal – The protester disagreed with GAO’s prior dismissal of certain allegations due to untimeliness. It claimed GAO “improperly used the date of the Unsuccessful Letter vice the Brief Explanation letter.” The allegations were that the agency failed to assign strengths to its proposal. These were raised the first time in response to the agency’s request for dismissal. Since this was more than 10 days after the requester knew the basis for these allegations, they were untimely. Thus, GAO found that it properly dismissed them.

The requester was represented by Rodger Cree. Peter S. Kozlowski of the Department of Veterans Affairs represented the agency. Kasia Dourney and Alexander O. Levine of
GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.