We persuaded the agency to first take corrective action, and then to request revised proposals, which resulted in contract award to our client.
Our client was a disappointed offeror on a Navy ship repair contract. We filed an initial protest with the GAO, focusing on the Navy’s improper evaluation of the awardee’s past performance, to obtain a stay. We then filed supplemental protests challenging the Navy’s evaluation of our client’s technical proposal, the awardee’s technical proposal, and the trade-off decision. One week later, the Navy agreed to take corrective action by cancelling the award, reevaluating proposals, and making a new award decision. Our protests were then dismissed as academic because our client had received the relief it sought.
The Navy began implementing its corrective action by sending out requests for clarification. We determined that the supposed clarification requests constituted a material change to solicitation terms or, at least, revealed a latent ambiguity and advised our client to protest. We filed an agency-level pre-award protest arguing that the only remedy was to amend the solicitation to clarify requirements and allow offerors to submit revised proposals. The Navy then made further changes to the solicitation and invited offerors to submit revised proposals.
Once the Navy invited revised proposals, the original awardee filed a pre-award protest at the GAO, requesting a stay of contract award. It asserted that the Navy had abused its discretion by asking for revised price proposals. Days later, the Navy notified the GAO that it had decided to override the CICA stay automatically granted to the original awardee because of its pre-award protest at the GAO. That same day, the Navy awarded our client the $61 million contract.
