CueBid Technologies, Inc. dba CueBid BioDefense (B-423161.7)

You should not care.

Category: Timeliness, BPA scope, interested party, CICA stay, SBA OHA stay

Date: 4 June 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423161.7

CueBid Technologies, Inc., dba CueBid BioDefense, protested several decisions by US Army regarding a solicitation for equipment washdown services. CueBid’s challenges included allegations about the Army’s cancellation (rather than amendment) of the RFQ, the establishment of several BPAs, the issuance of a call order to Titan Associates Group under a BPA, and the Army’s compliance with Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) stay requirements. The Army moved to dismiss all grounds:

• Timeliness: GAO dismissed as untimely all challenges relating to the Army’s decision to cancel the solicitation, its failure to amend the solicitation, and the establishment of BPAs. Protest grounds regarding agency actions for which CueBid had actual or constructive knowledge for more than ten days before filing were out of time.
• Scope of BPA: The protester's challenge that the Army issued a call order outside the BPA’s scope failed because the agency had contemporaneously amended the BPA to cover the new requirement; the protest was factually unsupported.
• Interested party: CueBid’s challenge regarding the order issued to Titan was dismissed because CueBid was not an actual or prospective BPA holder and therefore lacked standing as an interested party to protest.
• CICA stay allegations: Claims regarding improper override or noncompliance with the CICA stay were dismissed because GAO has no authority to enforce or review such actions.
• SBA OHA stay allegations: Allegations that the Army failed to honor the SBA OHA’s performance stay similarly failed to state a valid basis for protest under GAO’s jurisdiction.

The protest was entirely dismissed. The protester’s allegations were either untimely or, with respect to issues of scope and procedural compliance, predicated on erroneous facts or were not within GAO’s protest jurisdiction.

Digest

1. Protests challenging the cancelation of the solicitation, the failure to amend the solicitation, and the establishment of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) are dismissed as untimely.
2. Allegation that the call order was outside the scope of the BPA is dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest where the protester overlooked that the agency had amended the scope of the BPA.
3. Protest that the agency unreasonably issued a call order under the BPA is dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to assert the allegations.
4. Protest that the agency failed to properly override a Competition in Contracting Act stay of performance is dismissed as not for this Office’s consideration.
5. Protest that the agency failed to abide by a stay ordered by the Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals is dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest.