The protester, a mentor-protege JV, argued the solicitation permitted to submit qualifying projects from the protege’s parent as contract references. But GAO sided with the agency. The solicitation required projects done specifically by the protégé or the mentor-protégé, not a parent.
Mission SOLAIYA JV, LLC, GAO B-421775.11
- Protest – The protester was a mentor-protégé joint venture. The agency exlcluded the protester’s proposal as nonresponsive. The protester acknowledged it did not submit a qualifying project from its protégé or the mentor-protégé, but it argued that the agency should have permitted it to submit a project performed by its parent company.
- Decision – GAO found the protester’s interpretation of the solicitation unreasonable. The protester disregarded the express requirement that at least one qualifying project had to be from the protégé or the mentor-protégé. Furthermore, the solicitation provision the protester relied on only applied to any “scored evaluation element.” But the qualifying project requirement was not a scored evaluation element.
The protester was represented by Scott Arnold, Dominique Casimir, and Samarth Barot of Blank Rome LLP. The agency was represented by Christopher Murphy of GSA. Michelle Litteken, April Y. Shields, and Christina Sklarew of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
