United States: 2017 Protest Roundup

In addition to our regular recap of key protest decisions by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Court of Federal Claims this month, we have compiled a year-end recap of key bid protest decisions from 2017. The number of protests, merits decisions, and sustained protests dropped slightly in 2017 from years past, yet the overall protest effectiveness rate—that is, the percentage of protests that either were sustained or resulted in the agency voluntarily taking corrective action—rose to 47 percent. This suggests that protestors are protesting less frequently but on more meritorious grounds.

DECEMBER

Protection Strategies, Inc., B-414648.2; B-414648.3, Nov. 20, 2017

The GAO sustained this protest because the record did not adequately explain the evaluation or the best-value tradeoff decision. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Quotations (RFQ) under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for background investigative services in July 2016. The RFQ was limited to FSS vendors and anticipated a one-year blanket purchase agreement with fixed-price and time and material task orders and four potential one-year options. The RFQ stated that offers would be evaluated based on three factors in decreasing order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and (3) corporate capability. These factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price. HHS received four quotations and selected Skyhawk for award. The award was protested and the agency opted to take corrective action. Following reevaluation of the vendors' offers, the source selection authority (SSA) decided that although PSI's quotation had more strengths, they did not merit a $250,000 price increase. HHS again awarded the contract to Skyhawk.

PSI raised five challenges in its second protest of the award to Skyhawk and the GAO found that the agency's technical evaluation of the awardee and the best-value tradeoff decision were unreasonable and sustained the protest. First, the agency unreasonably assigned Skyhawk a strength under the management approach subfactor for some of the specifically named personnel exceeding the agency requirements for experience. GAO found that the record did not explain why the agency found that the experience exceeded requirements, especially as resumes were not provided for two of them. Second, the award decision does not reasonably explain why PSI's higher-rated quotation was not worth a price premium as compared to Skyhawk's quotation. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) minimized the significance of the strengths of PSI without a reasonable basis to do so.

Takeaway: While agencies are afforded great discretion in trade-off decisions and evaluations, the GAO requires reasonable explanations. When the SSA disagrees with evaluators, shemust be careful to document why a strength is actually not a strength and ensure that her explanation is consistent with the solicitation.

Latvian Connection LLC—Reconsideration, B-415043.3, Nov. 29, 2017

Only months after its first year-long suspension ended, Latvian Connection LLC was suspended again from protesting at the GAO for two years due to abusive protest practices. GAO found that Latvian Connection had not learned its lesson from its first suspension and continued to file multiple protests where it could not establish it was an interested party. Should Latvian Connection do the same after its two-year suspension, the GAO has threatened to ban the firm permanently.

Latvian Connection protested an Air Force award on August 28, 2017. The Air Force requested dismissal because the protest was untimely, as the protest was filed a month after Latvian Connection learned of its bases of protest. The GAO attorney allowed Latvian Connection to file a response to the request for dismissal and suspended the requirement of an agency report while the request was considered. Latvian Connection objected to the suspension of the agency report and argued that it was a violation of the GAO Protest rules. Latvian Connection demanded the GAO attorney recuse himself. When he did not do so, Latvian Connection filed a complaint with the Office of the Inspector General requesting an investigation of the GAO attorney for "waiving the Agency Report prematurely against the Bid Protest Rules." GAO dismissed the protest as untimely on September 19, 2017, finding that Latvian Connection had actual knowledge of the basis of its protest on July 24 and therefore should have filed by August 3, 2017.

Latvian Connection filed a request for reconsideration on September 21, 2017 because the decision "does not comply with prior GAO decisions regarding constructive notice." The request for reconsideration was "largely comprised of lengthy excerpts from...WorldWide Language, interspersed with derogatory and abusive remarks towards procuring agency officials, the GAO attorney assigned to the protest, and GAO generally." The GAO dismissed the request for reconsideration for failing to provide factual or legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision is warranted. GAO also went a step further and dismissed the action for continuing abuse of GAO's bid protest process. Latvian Connection was previously suspended August 18, 2016 for one year for abuse of process. The company clearly did not learn its lesson, in spite of the GAO writing Latvian Connection on August 18, 2017 to remind the firm of the legal requirements for protests. Latvian Connection filed 10 protests since its suspension ended on August 18, 2017 and repeatedly failed to show it was an interested party. The GAO, fed up with Latvian Connection's frivolous protests, suspended them for two years this time, since one year was clearly insufficient.

Takeaway: GAO does not appreciate being harangued and threatened. If a protester repeatedly files protests that are not legally sound and wastes GAO's time, that protester may find itself suspended from the protest forum.

Sky Quest Aviation LLC, B-415383, Dec. 4, 2017

GAO denied a protest on the merits filed by Sky Quest Aviation LLC (Sky Quest) of an award by the Department of the Air Force for helicopter flight services, after finding that the protester was an interested party.

The Air Force issued an RFP on August 7, 2017 and received proposals from seven offerors. Six of the offerors' proposals were found technically unacceptable, so the agency conducted discussions with all offerors and received revised proposals. After revisions, five offerors were found to be technically unacceptable and the Air Force chose the lower-priced of the two technically acceptable offerors for award. SQA, one of the technically unacceptable offerors, protested the award.

The GAO disagreed with the Air Force's argument that SQA was not an interested party to bring the protest because SQA's proposal was technically unacceptable and SQA's protest did not challenge the evaluation of its own proposal. SQA's protest argued that the agency failed to give consideration to solicitation requirements that would have rendered the final two offers technically unacceptable as well. Thus, a resolution of the protest in SQA's favor would result in no acceptable proposals and would require the agency to resolicit its requirement, giving SQA an opportunity to bid again. Because SQA would be eligible to compete for award under such circumstances, GAO found that SQA was an interested party and eligible to protest. GAO then denied the protest on the merits.

Takeaway: Protesters must make sure that they are interested parties in order to pursue a protest with the GAO. Under the Bid Protest Regulations, a protester must be an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract. 4 C.F.R. 21.0(a).

Year in Review

GAO received less protests in fiscal year 2017 (FY17) than 2016, but was still rather busy. According to GAO's Bid Protest Annual Report, GAO received 2,596 cases filed in fiscal year 2017, 256 of which were attributable to GAO's restored take order jurisdiction. GAO produced 581 merits decisions, only 17 percent of which sustained the protest, a 6 percent drop from FY 2016. In spite of the drop in sustained protests, the effectiveness rate rose to 47 percent, suggesting that agencies are more likely to take corrective action or engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR). In fact, 81 cases used ADR and had a success rate of 90 percent.

GAO offered the following list of the most prevalent reasons for sustaining protests in FY 2016:

  1. Unreasonable technical evaluation
  2. Unreasonable past performance evaluation
  3. Unreasonable cost or price evaluation
  4. Inadequate documentation of the record
  5. Flawed selection decision

With this in mind, here is our list of key protests to remember from 2016, ordered by date and not by significance:

Threat Management Group, LLC, B-413729, Dec. 21, 2016

MoFo successfully litigated this interesting case involving an out-of-scope task order award. When protestor's contract came to an end, the agency decided to award a task order under an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract for explosive ordnance disposal support services rather than holding a new competition for the ongoing requirements. The protestor challenged the task order as outside the scope of the IDIQ contract under which the task order was issued, and argued that the Competition in Contracting Act required the agency to compete the work on a full and open basis.

Normally, GAO compares the statement of work (SOW) of the protested task order to the underlying IDIQ contract to determine if the task order is out of scope. GAO was unable to do so in this case because there was no SOW for the task order at all. GAO reviewed what documentation it could and found the work to be outside the scope of the IDIQ performance work statement (PWS). Given the dearth of documentation, contradictory declarations by agency personnel, and evidence suggesting the work was out of scope, GAO sustained the protest.

Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc., B-413924, Jan. 12, 2017

Agencies enjoy great discretion in deciding to cancel a solicitation, and GAO seldom sustains a protest challenging such a decision. GAO sustained this protest, however, where the agency canceled a solicitation (and simply gave the work to the incumbent contractor, who the protester alleged "always receives these laundry contracts") but failed to give GAO a consistent explanation or sufficient documentation of the true reason for the cancelation.

The protest arose after the agency canceled a solicitation due to "legal guidance" and extended its existing laundry contract. The protester argued that the solicitation was canceled so that the agency could make a de facto sole source award to the incumbent. On the date the agency report was due, the agency instead filed a response and motion to dismiss with only three attachments, including the extension of the contract to the incumbent which bore the solicitation number of the canceled solicitation. After three requests for additional information did not yield any helpful results, the GAO made the adverse inference that no rational explanation existed and sustained the protest.

More details on this case and Walker Development are available in our January 2017 Protest Roundup.

CSR, Inc., B-413973; B-413973.2, Jan. 13, 2017

The protest of CSR shows that two arguments have the ability over overcome agencies' great deference when it comes to evaluating proposals: disparate treatment and insufficient evidence. The protester argued that the agency neglected to consider positive past performance information not expressly cited in its proposal. While agencies generally may reasonably limit their past performance review, the record showed that the agency had considered the past performance information of the awardee. This disparate treatment of offerors could have prejudiced the protester and the GAO sustained this protest ground. Additionally, the GAO found that the record failed to substantiate a discriminator justifying award to the higher-priced offeror. The SSA must always explain and document differences between the documented evaluation and the best value tradeoff and the SSA failed to do so here.

More information on the CSR decision is available here.

Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 16-44C, Apr. 10, 2017

This protest had many phases but most interestingly ended with the Court of Federal Claims granting the protester enhanced fees because the government engaged in behavior to deceive the protester and the GAO. Though an agency's decision to cancel a solicitation is granted the highest level of deference by the court, the agency needs to offer a rational and contemporaneously documented reason for doing so. In this case, there was no basis in the record to rationalize the cancellation. Additionally, the court allowed rare depositions of agency officials because the protester made colorable allegations of bias or bad faith. Usually, supplementing the administrative record is not permitted without good reason. The testimony revealed sufficient bias for the court to grant the protester enhanced costs for distasteful behavior on the agency's part. While allegations of bad faith will often water down stronger arguments, here the protester managed to meet the extraordinarily high burden of proof.

More details on the court's decision in Starry Associates are available here.

Bluewater Mgmt. Grp., LLC, B-414785, Sept. 18, 2017, 2017 WL 4174397

In Bluewater, the agency attempted to award an order for transportation requirements and lodging under GSA FSS contracts. However, the awardee only had an FSS Schedule 48 contract with a special item number for lodging and housekeeping services, not transportation. While the agency argued that it could purchase transportation services as other direct costs, the GAO was not convinced. The GSA Ordering Guidelines state that "[t]o the extent possible, all anticipated ODCs associated with performance and within the scope of the GSA Schedule contract should be offered as separately listed items, and have an established contract price." GAO held that the transportation services were required to be listed on the awardee's schedule with an established contract price according to the Ordering Guidelines and sustained the protest. GAO's decision shows that it will look closely at GSA schedule contracts to ensure they cover all of the items and services the awardee proposed to provide.

More on this decision is available here.

McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., B-414787, Sept. 18, 2017

McCann is a rare example of the GAO accepting a protester's argument that the agency's evaluation was mechanical, finicky, and focused on minor or clerical errors in the protester's proposal. The agency had removed the protester from the competition during the first of two phases for various errors that did not comply with the RFP. While two of the supposed deviations were erroneous, the third was true: the protester submitted its cost/price proposal in PDF instead of Excel format. Notwithstanding recent precedent (see Herman Constr. Grp., Inc., B-408018.2; B-408018.3), GAO here concluded that the Army's evaluation was unreasonable. Despite boilerplate language that award would be made to an offeror that "conforms to the solicitation requirements," the RFP did not notify offerors that the agency would reject proposals without performing a substantive evaluation. Also, it was unclear why the agency could not evaluate the PDF version or allow the protester to substitute an Excel version of the cost/price proposal. It is unusual for the GAO to put such a burden of proof on the agency and this may have created space for protesters in the future who were disappointed by hyper-mechanical evaluations.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-414822.5, October 13, 2017

This case highlights the poor position corrective action can put protesters in, because it can be unclear whether to protest immediately and be early or to wait and be untimely. In this case, the protester objected to the proposed corrective action of the GSA after the GAO indicated during outcome prediction that it would likely sustain the protest. The protest had asserted unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) and a flawed technical proposal, but the protester argued that the proposed corrective action did not bind GSA to a course of action to address the issues with OCI and the technical evaluation. The GAO dismissed the protest as academic because the protester could protest the results of the corrective action if it was dissatisfied when the time came. Protester filed another protest the next business day which GAO also dismissed because it was premature and contained unsubstantiated claims of bad faith.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions