Protest Against Evaluation Criteria

B-192453: Jun 18, 1980

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested a Federal grantee's selection of another sludge treatment system for the construction of an advanced wastewater treatment facility. The agency rejected the protester's bid as nonresponsive. The protester complained that the agency's refusal to consider its system placed undue restriction on competition, the agency's use of a two brand name was inappropriate, and its bid was functionally responsive to the solicitation and should not have been rejected, because it offered a system which would meet all material performance requirements. A protest to the grantee was rejected and appealed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA found that the protest was without merit and that the proposed award was reasonably supported. EPA contended that the protester's innovative technology excluded the protester and that its protest did not relate to procurement issues. Further, EPA believed that GAO was not an appropriate forum to consider issues involving basic project design determinations. GAO believed that a review is merited when a contractor complains of exclusionary specifications by Federal grantees because the EPA regulations encourage open competition. Therefore, the EPA request that GAO dismiss the matter was rejected. Regarding the restrictiveness of the specification, EPA stated the protester's system had not been used in any installation. Because pilot-scale installations were not in operation, the technical data submitted to the grantee were largely theoretical. The protester's system incorporates essentially untried design and process differences from past practice. Under these circumstances, GAO believed the use of the two brand name or equal specification and the finding that the protester's system was not equal to the specified system was not unreasonable or the result of bad faith. In any event, the protester was not prejudiced by the EPA refusal to consider its complaint. It was not necessary to resolve the other issues raised by the protester. The complaint was denied.

Mar 22, 2018

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here