Patently Ambiguous Solicitation Must Be Challenged Before Submission of Responses A protester’s challenge to a request for quotation as patently

Patently Ambiguous Solicitation Must Be Challenged Before Submission of Responses A protester’s challenge to a request for quotation as patently

ambiguous

was dismissed as untimely by the Government Accountability Office. Karthik Consulting, LLC protested the issuance of a task order for cybersecurity services to Zen Strategics, LLC, by the Department of Homeland Security.

Karthik was excluded from the competition because it was not an active participant of the program enacted under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act at the time of quotation submission. At that point Karthik had graduated from the program but had been an active participant when it received an award under the underlying GSA contract.

Karthik argued that the RFQ contained language that suggested that 8(a) holders of the underlying GSA contract would be eligible to compete for this requirement even if they had since graduated from the program.

The GAO agreed that the RFQ included language that could be read as suggested by Karthik. However, it also found that the RFQ included other language which contradicted the one relied on by Karthik. As a result, the GAO concluded that the RFQ was patently ambiguous.

Since Karthik submitted a quotation without challenging the terms of the solicitation as patently ambiguous, the GAO held that it could not complain that the agency proceeded in a manner inconsistent with one of the possible interpretations of the RFQ. In short, Karthik had to challenge the patent ambiguity prior to the submission of quotations.