We recently defined the term patent ambiguity, as opposed to a latent one, and its protest implications before the Court of Federal Claims under the so-called Blue & Gold waiver rule (that is, all patent ambiguities must be addressed prior to the proposal deadline or an offeror waives its right to protest that matter after).
Now in Correct Solutions, LLC (B-421533) before GAO, an RFP’s patent ambiguity again foiled an offeror, this time bidding a telecom contract. SAM.gov, formally the System for Award Management and the website where most RFPs are posted, and the RFP itself contained two different submission instructions, with different email addresses. The protester, Correct Solutions, emailed its proposal to only one of these addresses prior to RFP close; it later sent its proposal to the other. Correct’s proposal was found to be untimely and was disqualified from award.
GAO found the discrepancy in submittal instructions was a patent ambiguity that should have been resolved prior to award. Alternately, Correct should have followed both sets of instructions prior to the RFP’s deadline. Most definitely, Correct’s counsel should have seen this dismissal coming.