Protester Argued the Amendment Created a Sole-Source Award. Why Did GAO Dismiss?
The protester argued that a solicitation amendment resulted in an improper sole-source award that only the incumbent could meet. GAO dismissed the protest for untimeliness. The amendment did not create the issues identified by the protester. The protester should have challenged the solicitation before the initial quotations were due.
SteerBridge Strategies, LLC, GAO B-422831.2; B-422831.3
- Protest – The agency issued an RFQ for modern claims processing support services, and subsequently implemented a corrective action. The protester argued the agency unreasonably decided to amend rather than cancel the solicitation. It contended this decision created an improper sole-source procurement that only the incumbent contractor — which was not an SDVOSB — could meet.
- Decision – GAO found the protest was untimely. The amendment at issue did not create the issues identified by the protester. Thus, the time for challenging the issues raised elapsed after the due date for initial quotations.
The protester was represented by William F. Savarino, Rhina M. Cardenal, and John J. O’Brien Cordatis LLP. The agency was represented by Jennifer Claypool, Danica Hong, and Alexander J. Brittin, Jr. of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacob M. Talcott 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/2025/03/SteerBridge-Strategies-LLC.pdf” title=”SteerBridge Strategies, LLC”]
