GAO Bid Protest Update for June 2012 (Part Two)

June 20, 2012 Recent GAO Bid Protest Decisions: In May we saw several additional GAO decisions posted since our last update that may have an impact on government procurement and which further highlight how the GAO is likely to continue handling certain types of bid protests. Most notable this month is a loss for the government in the case of KPMG LLP. The case involves allegations of misleading agency discussions, the misevaluation of proposals, failure to conduct a proper cost realism analysis and an unreasonable source selection decision. In that case, the Protestor prevailed and the GAO recommended that the CIA reimburse the Protestor's costs for filing and pursuing the protest. On the other hand, ITT Electronic Systems includes similar allegations involving unreasonable proposal evaluations, failure to hold meaningful discussions, the unequal treatment of bidders and a flawed best value determination. In that case, the government prevailed. King Farm Associates involves a request for reconsideration based on the recent GSA Western Regional Conference scandal. In that case, the GAO was not persuaded to reconsider the case based on the Protestor's allegations of newly discovered misconduct by the GSA. The GAO found that the Protestor failed to establish a sufficent connection between the scandal and the GAO's bid protest decision. In ASPEC Engineering, the Protestor lost its challenge alleging that the government conducted an unreasonable evaluation and improperly rejected the proposal as technically unacceptable. The GAO found that the Protestor failed to address the evaluation criteria as required by the Solicitation. For those using the Fed Connect web portal, the case of Onsite OHS may be of interest. In that case, the Protestor alleged that the agency failed to evaluate its proposal. However, the GAO found that the Protestor did not use Fed Connect properly and therefore denied the protest.

Finally, in CC Distributors, the Protestor challenged the award to another bidder on a best value basis considering past performance. The Protestor alleged that both the past performance evaluation and the price evaluation were unreasonable. In denying the protest, the GAO addressed how it examines the reasonableness of agency action in these types of awards.

Good Luck on that next bid!

Frank V. Reilly 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (561) 400-0072 phone frank@frankvreilly.com www.frankvreilly.com