Protester Said Awardee Made a Misrepresentation. Why Did GAO Think the Argument Lacked Support?
The protester claimed the awardee made a misrepresentation. GAO said the argument lacked evidentiary support. The alleged misrepresentation was based on second-hand hearsay from at least one unidentified source.
Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc., GAO B-421550.2 et al.
- Additional Strengths – The protester contended the agency failed to credit its proposal with positive attributes. GAO found the agency reasonably concluded the alleged positive attributes didn’t benefit the agency. For example, the protester wanted credit for its transition approach. But the RFP didn’t even mention consideration of transition as part of the evaluation.
- Alleged Misrepresentation – The protester alleged the awardee misrepresented the availability of a subcontractor. But the protesters only evidence for this misrepresentation was a declaration from an employee of the subcontractor. The employee said he had heard of the misrepresentation from an agency official who had heard about it from another unnamed agency official. GAO said this double hearsay was not compelling evidence.
The protester is represented by Aron C. Beezley and Lisa A. Markman of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The awardee is represented by Jason A. Blindauer of Blindauer Law, PLLC. The agency is represented by Stephen J. Faherty and Patrick D. Healy of the Navy. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan 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/2023/07/GAO-Valiant.pdf” title=”GAO – Valiant”]
