Thinking About a Protest? Make Sure You’re Next in Line For Award.

The protester challenged the award. GAO, however, found the protester was not an interested party. Even if the awardee was eliminated, several other offerors submitted proposals that were technically superior and cheaper than the protester’s. The protester was not next in line for award and thus could not maintain a protest.

Foxhole Technology, LLC, GAO B-420718

Background

The Department of Energy issued an RFQ for the establishment of a BPA for cybersecurity services. After reviewing proposals, the agency made award to AmVet Technologies, LLC. An unsuccessful vendor, Foxhole Technology, protested, alleging AmVet lacked experience required by the solicitation.

Decision

GAO dismissed the protest. Foxhole had only challenged the award to AmVet. But even if AmVet’s quotation was eliminated, several other companies were next in line for award with quotations that were technically superior and cheaper than Foxhole’s. Foxhole did not challenge those other proposals and thus was not an interested party in the protest.

Foxhole is represented by Brian Buntin, J. Ryan Frazee, and Jennifer Eve Retener of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, AmVet, is represented by William T. Welch, J. Patrick McMahon, and Lewis Rhodes of McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC. The agency is represented by Kevin R. Hilferty, Stephanie B. Young, Marianny Lvvovsky, and Stephanie J. Villalta of the Department of Energy. GAO attorneys Scott H. Riback and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GAO-Foxhole-Technology.pdf” title=”GAO-Foxhole Technology”]