The protester challenged a sole-source bridge contract awarded to the awardee under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, arguing the agency failed to conduct a full and open competition and violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). GAO dismissed the protest, finding the protester's challenges to the sole-source award untimely. And its supplemental protest, which was based on information obtained from the agency's response to the untimely initial protest, was also untimely. The protester's PIA allegations were premature and lacked a legally sufficient basis.
Threat Tec, LLC, GAO, B-424221
- Background - After a protest stayed the original competitive award, the agency determined that it could obtain some of the services it required through the SBIR program. The agency issued a phase III SBIR award to the awardee, who had purchased technology assets from a prior phase II contractor. The protester, an incumbent team member that had submitted a proposal through a new joint venture, challenged the sole-source award as improper under the Competition in Contracting Act and alleged the agency violated the PIA because the awardee had hired the protester's former program manager.
- Sole-Source Award Challenge - The protester argued the agency improperly issued a sole-source award without posting a justification and approval. But after receiving the agency's determination and findings revealing the SBIR phase III basis for the award, the protester waited more than 10 days before arguing that the awardee was ineligible for an SBIR award. GAO dismissed this argument as an untimely supplemental protest. Because the protester had sufficient information from the D&F and public SBIR databases to raise the eligibility challenge by February 9, but waited until February 17, the argument was untimely.
- Successor-in-Interest Argument - The protester filed a supplemental protest arguing the awardee was not a true successor-in-interest to the prior SBIR phase II contractor. GAO dismissed this ground as untimely too, applying the rule that supplemental protest grounds based on information produced in response to an untimely initial protest are themselves untimely. GAO also noted that, in any event, the record showed the awardee acquired all relevant technology and intellectual property, including the core training platform, supported by sworn declarations from both companies' executives.
- Procurement Integrity Act Allegations - The protester argued the agency violated the PIA by awarding the contract to a firm employing the protester's former program manager, and failed to investigate the alleged violation. GAO dismissed this ground as premature. GAO will not consider PIA protests before the agency responds to a timely report of the alleged violation. The protester filed its protest just one day after notifying the agency. GAO further found the allegation legally insufficient because the protester failed to identify any government misconduct—the core concern involved private parties (the awardee hiring a former employee), not government action. An agency's alleged failure to investigate is not, in itself, the misconduct that gives rise to a PIA violation.
The protester is represented by Michael Gardner, Esq., Jordan N. Malone, Esq., Olivia Bellini, Esq., Shomari B. Wade, Esq., and Eleanor E. Ross, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The intervenor, Chitra Productions, L.L.C., is represented by J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., Ken M. Hyde, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., of Reaves GovCon Group. The government is represented by Robert B. Neill, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Carter R. Cassidy, Esq., and Major Joseph A. Seaton, Jr., of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Christine Martin, Esq., Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., participated in the decision.