In REB ROWE Services, LLC; General Services Administration–Reconsideration, B-410001.6; B-410001.7 (Apr. 4, 2016), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently denied a request for reconsideration and clarified that protest grounds are interpreted broadly for timeliness purposes. This decision is a reminder for protestors and intervenors alike that seemingly untimely protest grounds may still be revived if they involve “the same essential elements” as timely filed protest allegations.

In the underlying procurement, the agency’s evaluation had determined the protestor’s price was unrealistic and assessed performance risk based upon the unrealistically low price.  The initial protest was timely filed, and the protestor filed comments on the agency report 11 days after the agency report was filed.  The protestor did not specifically invoke price realism until it filed its comments.  GAO sustained the protest based on the agency’s unreasonable price realism analysis, holding that the agency failed to evaluate the protestor’s unique staffing approach during the price realism analysis; “instead [the agency] simply compared [the protestor’s] price to the government estimate and other offerors’ prices.”

Both the awardee and the agency requested reconsideration of the sustained protest.

The request for reconsideration declined to challenge the GAO’s substantive conclusion and instead argued that the price realism protest allegation was untimely raised.  Specifically, the request argued that the protestor did not raise the price realism arguments until it filed its comments 11 days after receipt of the agency report, in violation of the requirement that protest grounds be raised within 10 days of when the basis for the allegation is known or should have been known.  See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).

GAO denied the request for reconsideration, holding that although the initial protest did not contain any express realism argument or even mention the term “price realism,” the protest did challenge the agency’s evaluation of the protestor’s staffing approach.  Specifically that the protestor challenged the reasonableness of the government price estimate, and GAO determined that “whether [the protestor] couched its challenges to the government estimate as an argument about price realism, or about adequate staffing, the essential elements in dispute were the same.”

Although this decision does not fundamentally change the timeliness rules for supplemental protests, it serves as reminder that GAO may consider seemingly untimely protest grounds if they involve “the same essential elements” as previously filed protest grounds.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Daniel Russell Jr. Daniel Russell Jr.

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in…

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in excess of $100 million.

Dan has experience litigating contract claims and disputes before federal judges and juries, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including matters arising out of terminations, cost-allowability disputes, defective pricing claims, prime-sub disputes, and claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Dan has also represented contractors in a myriad of tort suits arising out of work performed for the federal government. Dan has unparalleled experience defending “contractor on the battlefield” tort suits involving contracts performed during wartime or other high-risk, contingency environments. Dan has obtained complete dismissals of tort suits based on an array of federal-law-based defenses, including the government contractor defense, the political question doctrine, federal preemption, and derivative sovereign immunity.

Dan has litigated a variety of other matters involving government contracts and uniquely-federal issues, including: cases brought under the civil False Claims Act (FCA); insurance coverage matters for federal contractors; claims against federal agencies brought under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act; and regulatory enforcement actions.

At the appellate level, Dan has argued cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented clients in matters before numerous other appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to his litigation practice, Dan regularly provides risk-mitigation counseling for contractors, with a particular focus on strategies to reduce potential exposure to tort claims and other liabilities in connection with the performance of high-risk government contracts.

Photo of Nooree Lee Nooree Lee

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of corporate transactions and restructurings. His experience includes preparing businesses for sale, negotiating deal documents, coordinating large-scale diligence processes, and navigating pre- and post-closing regulatory approvals and integration. He has advised on…

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of corporate transactions and restructurings. His experience includes preparing businesses for sale, negotiating deal documents, coordinating large-scale diligence processes, and navigating pre- and post-closing regulatory approvals and integration. He has advised on 35+ M&A deals involving government contractors totaling over $30 billion in combined value. This includes Veritas Capital’s acquisition of Cubic Corp. for $2.8 billion; the acquisition of Perspecta Inc. by Veritas Capital portfolio company Peraton for $7.1 billion; and Cameco Corporation’s strategic partnership with Brookfield Renewable Partners to acquire Westinghouse Electric Company for $7.8+ billion.

Nooree also counsels clients navigating the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) arrangements. Nooree has advised both U.S. and ex-U.S. companies in connection with defense sales to numerous foreign defense ministries, including those of Australia, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Over the past several years, Nooree’s practice has expanded to include advising on the intersection of government procurement and artificial intelligence. Nooree counsels clients on the negotiation of AI-focused procurement and non-procurement agreements with the U.S. government and the rollout of procurement regulations and policy stemming from the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.

Nooree maintains an active pro bono practice focusing on appeals of denied industrial security clearance applications and public housing and housing discrimination matters. In addition to his work within the firm, Nooree is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law and has served on the Section Council and the Section’s Diversity Committee. He also served as the firm’s Fellow for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity program in 2023.