Does Your Protest Arguably Implicate the Solicitation’s Terms? Don’t Wait to File.

A post-award protest raised two arguments related to a solicitation amendment. GAO said the arguments were effectively challenges to the terms of the amendment. The protester should have raised the arguments within 10 days of the amendment, not after award.

ODL Services, GAO B-421537

• Proposal Revisions – After receiving proposals the agency amended the solicitation. The amendment removed a paragraph stating the agency would evaluate realism of professional compensation. Following award, the protester argued the agency erred in not permitting proposal revisions to address the amendment. GAO found the argument untimely. The amendment stated the agency would not allow proposal revisions. If the protester wanted revisions, it should’ve filed within 10 days of the amendment, not after award.
• Ambiguity – The protester contended the amendment created a latent ambiguity as to whether the agency would evaluate realism. But GAO found the amendment created a patent ambiguity. The amendment removed the only substantive realism criterion from the RFP, but the RFP still had vestigial references to realism. The protester should have raised the ambiguity argument within 10 days of the amendment.

The protester is represented by Shomari B. Wade, Michael J. Gardner, Timothy M. McLister, and Jordan N. Malone of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon, Lieutenant Colonel Grant T. Wahlquist, and Jeff Branstetter of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GAO-ODL-Services.pdf” title=”GAO – ODL Services”]