[Protest of IFB Issued by ICC]

B-209089,B-209089.3,B-209089.4,B-209089.5: Mar 28, 1983

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Three firms protested an Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) invitation for bids (IFB) for carrier insurance and a process agent compliance program. The first protester argued that the IFB contained numerous misrepresentations, misinformation, and other improprieties, thus precluding any contractor from performing the contract. GAO held that, subsequent to ICC consideration of these problems, the agency reasonably changed the IFB to correct the problems. The second protester objected to the rejection of its bid for failure to insert a price in a specific line item. The protester argued that the line item did not require a separate unit cost aside from the total contract cost. ICC contended that the protester did not indicate whether the line item cost was included in the price of other line items or if it would be provided to ICC at no cost. GAO held that, since the line item cost could not be determined from the face of the bid, ICC properly rejected the bid as nonresponsive. Further, the protester's failure to indicate the price could not be waived, because the IFB described the item as a material requirement. The third protester argued that a conflict of interest existed among the awardee's officers and that they should not be allowed to operate the program. GAO concurred with the ICC conclusion that the nature of the contract made a conflict of interest unlikely. The third protester also objected to the awarding of the contract while its protest had not yet been settled. GAO held that, since high-level ICC officials determined that a prompt award was necessary, the award was not subject to GAO interruption. Accordingly, the first two protests were denied and the third protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.

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