If Your Protest Provides the Information that Should’ve Been in Your Proposal, You’re Not on the Road to Victory at GAO

A protest is not the place for a proposal do-over. In this case, the agency found that the protester’s proposal was vague and made unsupported claims. The protester tried to clarify those claims in its protest, but by then it was too late. Offerors must submit well-written proposals that demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements. If an offeror has omitted information from their proposal, they cannot use a protest as a supplement to provide that missing information.

Spathe Systems, LLC, GAO B-420399, B-420399.2

U.S. Special Operations Command issued a solicitation seeking to award a task order for language and cultural expertise. Spathe Systems submitted a proposal. The agency found Sptath’s proposal marginal under the solicitation’s program management factor, finding that the company had made vague, unsupported claims about its approach. Following the award to another company, Threat Tec, Spathe protested.

Spathe argued that many of the claims it made in its proposal had just been introductory statements that the agency should not have evaluated. But GAO found that Spathe had not adequately addressed the claims made in its proposal. Indeed, Spathe was now, in its protest, attempting to clarify the assertions in its proposal with additional information.

Spathe attempted to argue that if its assertions in the proposal were unclear, it was because the 25-page limit imposed by the solicitation made further clarification impossible. GAO reasoned that if Spathe objected to the page limit, it should have raised the issue before the proposal deadline. Its objection to the terms of the solicitation was now untimely.

Spathe is represented by Joseph M Goldstein and Diana C. Mendez of Shutts & Bowen LLP. The intervenor, Threat Tec, is represented by Robert E. Korroch, Anthony A. Anikeef, and Lauren N. Pennington of Williams Mullen, P.C. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr. and Carolyn J. Fox of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GAO-Spathe-Systems.pdf” title=”GAO – Spathe Systems”]