Bid Protests

Ward & Berry PLLC represents clients in the bid protest process before the Court of Federal Claims, the Government Accountability Office, and agency procurement officials.

Bid Protest Smorgasbord

Representative engagements by Ward & Berry PLLC attorneys include:

  • Successfully obtained corrective action for a Small Business client on two (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineer contracts totaling approximately $83 million, affording the client another opportunity to win the contract awards. In these cases, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took corrective action following thorough debriefings that were conducted pursuant to the Department of Defense’s new enhanced debriefing rules. The issues in these cases included (1) the agency’s evaluations were inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria and (2) the agency’s source selection decisions were improper and should have been referred to the Small Business Administration for Certificate of Competency determinations.
  • Successfully obtained corrective action following the filing of a GAO bid protest on behalf of a Joint Venture on a $54 million federal construction project, affording the client another opportunity to win the contract award. Protest grounds in this case included: (1) the agency’s evaluation of the Joint Venture’s proposal was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria, (2) the agency failed to conduct a proper best value determination, and (3) the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions which prejudiced the Joint Venture.
  • Successfully obtained corrective action following the filing of a GAO bid protest on behalf of a 8(a) Small Business client on a multi-million dollar services contract, affording the client another opportunity to win the contract award. Protest grounds in this case included: (1) the agency’s evaluation of the offeror’s proposal was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria, (2) the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions which prejudiced the offeror, (3) the agency failed to conduct a proper best value determination, and (4) the agency’s source selection decision was improper and should have been referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination.
  • Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision in a $195 million dollar procurement for logistical support and services on Army tanks and other vehicles in Hawaii.
  • Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging the Army’s evaluation of the contractors proposed staffing and price proposal in a $15.3 million dollar procurement for communications services.
  • Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging a competitive range determination for maintenance, repair, and warehousing of war reserve material at six different air bases in the Republic of Korea.
  • Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging the terms of a Request for Quotations (RFQ) and the Army’s earlier cancellation of an RFQ for the same equipment.
  • Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision in a $52 million procurement for linguist services in Eastern Europe when the protester withdrew its protest following a GAO outcome prediction ADR session.