Government Contracts Legal Forum

COFC AND GAO DISAGREE, COURT SUSTAINS $32M PROTEST

In another example of the Court of Federal Claims ("Court") and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reaching different conclusions, the Court sustained a $32 million protest in a recent decision brought against the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), whereas GAO had dismissed the protest as untimely on the grounds that LabCorp should have protested what GAO saw as a patent ambiguity in the solicitation before the deadline for receipt of proposals.  The Court disagreed, however, and concluded that the solicitation did not contain a patent ambiguity and that LabCorp did not waive its claim by failing to bring a protest before the proposal period closed.

LabCorp alleged that while the General Services Administration's e-Buy website (where bidders were required to submit their proposals) listed the submission deadline as 2 p.m. Eastern time, the formal solicitation stated that the deadline to submit proposals was 2 p.m. Central time.  Although LabCorp contacted the VA when it noticed the discrepancy, and the VA confirmed that proposals were due at 2 p.m. Central time, when LabCorp attempted to submit its bid at 1:03 p.m. Central Time, GSA's e-Buy website would not accept the bid and sent LabCorp an electronic notice that the RFQ had closed at 2 p.m. Eastern.

While GAO concluded that the discrepancy between the deadline for proposals in the solicitation and on the e-Buy website was a patent ambiguity that LabCorp should have protested before the close of procurement, Judge Allegra concluded that there was no patent ambiguity because the solicitation unambiguously stated the deadline for proposals, and the Court refused to use extrinsic evidence such as the e-Buy website to import ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous solicitation.  Because the discrepancy was not a patent ambiguity, the Court, unlike GAO, concluded that LabCorp had not waived its claim.  The Court noted that LabCorp brought the discrepancy to the VA's attention when it discovered the problem, and that LabCorp did not know the website would prevent it from submitting its bid until it tried to submit it and it was too late to object further.

The Court also imposed discovery sanctions on the government for failing to preserve a copy of the e-Buy website, because without those records, the Court could not evaluate what LabCorp saw prior to the close of the procurement.  For a discussion on those sanctions, see my post here.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.governmentcontractslegalforum.com/admin/trackback/294479
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Washington
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Phone: 202.624.2500
Fax: 202.628.5116
Orange County
3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614-8505
Phone: 949.263.8400
Fax: 949.263.8414
New York
590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022-2524
Phone: 212.223.4000
Fax: 212.223.4134
Anchorage
1029 W. 3rd Avenue Suite #402
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907.865.2600
Los Angeles
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.622.4750
Fax: 213.622.2690
London
11 Pilgrim Street
London, EC4V 6RN United Kingdom
Phone: +44.207.413.0011
Fax: +44.207.413.0333
San Francisco
275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.986.2800
Fax: 415.986.2827
Brussels
71, Rue Royale
Brussels, B - 1000 Belgium
Phone: +32.2.282.4082
Fax: +32.2.230.6399