Imagine your company—and your fiercest rival—as both awardees on a multiple-award contract. Congrats! Task order competition will be fierce. Being a savvy GovConBrief reader, you think a protest of your competitor may clear the way for success.
Unfortunately, a recent GAO decision makes clear that there is no path to challenge a fellow awardee.
At the outset, let’s acknowledge the cleverness of this strategy. With the increasing popularity of multiple-award vehicles, task order capture is essential for success. Protesting a well-qualified awardee could reduce competition and increase the likelihood of success in task order competitions. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?
The problem is that GAO does not interpret protests of fellow awardees to be part of its bid protest mission. GAO explained more than thirty years ago that “consistent with the objective of our bid protest function to ensure full and open competition for government contracts, our Office generally will not review a protest that has the purpose or effect, whether explicit or implicit, of reducing competition to the benefit of the protester.” Ingersoll-Rand Co., B-236495, 89-2 CPD ¶ 542 (Comp. Gen. Dec. 12, 1989).
In a recent decision, Allegheny Science & Technology Corp., B-421699 et al., __ CPD ¶ __ (Comp. Gen. Sept. 1, 2023), GAO reiterated that challenging fellow awardees under a multiple award contract is a protest designed to reduce competition. It therefore refused to consider it.
The protest concerned a blanket purchase agreement award for scientific, engineering, and technical support services under the General Service Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule. Among its challenges, Allegheny argued that the awardee was not eligible for its underlying Federal Supply Schedule contract. Under this theory, the awardee never should have been eligible to compete for the purchase order.
GAO dismissed Allegheny’s challenge explaining that, “where a solicitation contemplates multiple awards, another awardee of the same contract is not an interested party to challenge the award of that contract to another firm.” It then cut to the heart of the matter: “A challenge to the award of an underlying task order contract, which was the basis for the successful vendor’s ability to compete, effectively amounts to a protest that has the purpose or effect of reducing competition to the benefit of the protester. As a general rule, our Office does not consider such arguments as stating a valid basis for protest.” Consequently, the protest was dismissed.
GAO’s decision highlights one of the protest systems’ limitations. Bid protests are not tools to shape the competitive landscape among awardees. Instead, they are an opportunity for unsuccessful offerors who have been unfairly eliminated from competition to vindicate their interest in having fair consideration of their offer. As Allegheny Science learned, GAO is vigilant in protecting this distinction.