A common occurrence in Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid-protest practice is for the procuring agency to announce it will take corrective action in response to a complaint against the award and the agency requests that GAO dismiss the protest as academic. The question that often arises in a followup protest after the dismissal is whether the agency’s corrective agency was a meaningful response in light of the protester’s earlier allegations of prejudicial error. When an agency fails to implement the promised corrective action, the agency’s action can be protested when it precludes the timely, economical resolution of the initial protest. The GAO considered such a followup protest in DirectViz Solutions, LLC, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-417565.3, 2019 CPD ¶ 372.
In BNL, Inc., B-409450, B-409450.3, 2014 CPD ¶ 138, 2014 WL 1818046, the protester in a procurement for management, acquisition, and financial support to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) argued that the agency improperly evaluated the proposal of Strategy and Management Services, Inc. (SAMS), one of three awardees.
Frequently, protesters will seek to supplement their complaints after the initial GAO protest submission. When protesters raise multiple rounds for complaint, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will be guided by its bid protest regulations on timeliness under 4 C.F.R. § 21.2. These regulations do not contemplate “[t]he piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues.” Curtis Center Ltd. Partnership—Reconsideration, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-257863.3, 95-1 CPD 147.
On September 15, 2017, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor announced the new minimum wage rate that government contractors will have to pay in 2018: $10.35 an hour. This is an increase from the current rate of $10.20 an hour.
In a bid protest filed by Swets Information Services (B-410078, Oct. 20, 2014), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a protest based upon inadequate documentation of the agency’s evaluation. However, the agency denied the protest on other grounds, including protester’s challenge that the agency’s past-performance evaluation was erroneous, because the protester failed to show it was prejudiced as a result of the alleged error.