The protester requested reimbursement of protest costs after the agency delayed taking corrective action. The protester had alleged the agency failed to demonstrate the urgency necessary for a sole-source award. But GAO denied the request for costs, finding the protester’s argument was not clearly meritorious; the agency had sufficiently justified the urgency of a sole-source award.
Trilogy Secured Services, LLC–Costs, GAO B-422661.2
- Reimbursement Request – The protester requested reimbursement costs for its protest challenging a sole-source award for maintenance of security systems for the agency’s facilities. GAO will recommend reimbursement of protest costs when the agency delayed in taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. The protester argued the protest was clearly meritorious, and the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action, which was taken after the agency report.
- Urgency -The protester had alleged the agency’s Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) failed to explain the urgency for its security maintenance services. The agency explained that the extent and nature of harm could not be obtained immediately, but the urgency was abundantly clear in terms of national security, public safety, and property concerns. It also provided a few examples of currently outdated and non-functional systems. GAO found that the agency’s explanation was reasonable Thus, the protester’s argument was not clearly meritorious..
- Consideration of Other Sources – The protester claimed the agency failed to consider other sources before making the sole-source award. GAO observed that the agency did consider the protester because the protester was the incumbent performing the agency’s expiring security maintenance contract, and the agency reported experiencing issues with the protester’s performance of the contract. The protester did not address the agency’s evidence about the protester’s past performance. Thus, GAO found that the protester did not raise any challenges that were meritorious, much less clearly meritorious.
The protester was represented by Camille Chambers, Ryan C. Bradel, and Chelsea A. Padgett of Ward & Berry, PLLC. The agency was represented by Douglas Kornreich and Eno-Obong Essien of HHS. Emily R. O’Hara and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
