Interesting Arguments From an Uninterested Party: GAO Denies Protests From an Ineligible Protester
The protester challenged the cancellation of an invitation for bids. GAO said the protester was not an interested party because its bid had already been rejected as ineligible.
Hamilton Pacific Chamberlain, LLC, GAO B-422568.2
- Protest Argument– The protester contended that cancellation of the solicitation violated the FAR and that if the agency were to proceed, the only reasonable outcome would be award to the protester.
- Ineligibility – GAO maintained that the agency had properly found the protester ineligible because the protester’s initial proposal failed to include a signed certification. Even if GAO sustained the protest, the protester would still be ineligible award. GAO dismissed the protest because the protester was not an interested party.
The protester was represented by P. Sean Milani-nia and David Timm of Fox Rothschild LLP The agency was represented by Brian R. Reed. Heather Weiner, Dylan T. Silver, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GAO-Hamilton-Pacific.pdf” title=”GAO – Hamilton Pacific”]
