About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-413156.21 1 (2016-10-14)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadthy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A O Comptroller General LAccountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below wassubjectto a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision ....-.-------------- Matter of: The Arbinger Company--Advisory Opinion File: B-413156.21 Date: October 14, 2016 David Gallacher, Esq., and Derek R. Mullins, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Christopher Murphy, Esq., and Kristen M. Nowadly, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of this advisory opinion. DIGEST Where solicitation required offerors to submit a specific version of a document, and warned offerors not to alter the document, the agency reasonably eliminated protester's proposal from consideration when protester submitted a different version of the document. DECISION The Arbinger Company, a small business of Farmington, Utah, challenges the elimination of its proposal from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS02Q1 5CRR0002 (frequently referred to as the Human Capital and Training Solutions Small Business (HCaTS SB) solicitation), issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide training and development services across the federal government. Arbinger submitted a protest to our Office on May 20, 2016, in which it asserted that the agency unreasonably rejected Arbinger's proposal because it submitted the wrong version of an RFP attachment. Arbinger also argued that the agency should have engaged in clarifications to allow Arbinger to submit the correct version of the attachment. On July 19, we dismissed Arbinger's protest, and several others, when another offeror under the solicitation submitted a protest to the United States Court of Federal Claims.1 Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b) (2016). On 1 The Arbinqer Co., et al., B-413156.4 et al., July 19, 2016 (unpublished decision).