GAO Parses Difference Between a Contract and a Cash Prize

The protester challenged its elimination from the first round of an evaluation. The agency said GAO lacked jurisdiction because the first round involved award of a cash prize, and GAO does not hear challenges to prizes. But GAO found the procurement would ultimately result in a contract, so GAO possessed jurisdiction. 

ARiA, GAO B-422365 et al. 

• Solicitation – The Army posted a competition announcement under the Small Business Innovation Research program. The announcement sought white papers on “scalable techniques for adversarial AI.” The competition was conducted in three rounds. In the first two rounds, successful applicants would receive a cash prize. In the third, the Army would select an applicant award. 
• Protester Is Rejected – The protester submitted a white paper, but it was not selected for participation in the second round. The protester challenged the evaluation. 
• Contract v. Cash Prize – The agency argued GAO should dismiss because the protester was eliminated after the first round, and the first round only involved award of cash prize. GAO lacks jurisdiction over protests challenging award of a cash prize. But here, GAO noted that while two rounds of the competition involved cash prizes, at the end of all the rounds, the procurement would result in the award of a contract. GAO determined it had jurisdiction. 
• Timeliness – GAO, however, found that some of the protester’s arguments were untimely. The protester objected to the evaluation system used to assess proposals. GAO found this challenge should have been raised before the deadline for white papers. 
• Valid Protest Basis – GAO also found the protester failed to state a valid protest basis. The protester claimed it had been uniquely disadvantaged in the procurement. But it did not explain how its white paper merited higher ratings, or how it should have been evaluated differently. 

The protester is represented by Jason E. Summers. The agency is represented by Wade L. Brown and Peggy L. Gieseking of the Army and by Meagan K. Guerzon of the Small Business Administration. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief 

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GAO-ARIA-1.pdf” title=”GAO – ARIA”]