A Plea for Reconsideration
Unmoved by that dismissal, APLS sought reconsideration, arguing that GAO committed a “clear error” and that nothing in KBR’s or the Army’s filings required it to prove eligibility under the small business rules. The company further asserted GAO never instructed it to rebut KBR’s claim directly.
But GAO was unsympathetic. Its decision noted that protest regulations allowed APLS to seek permission to respond at any time — yet the company didn’t. “Where APLS’s status as an interested party was questioned, it was incumbent upon APLS to address the argument,” the office wrote. “The protester has the burden to establish it is an interested party.”
The Larger Battlefield
The Army’s contract, structured under the fifth round of LOGCAP, issued four task orders covering four regional commands. While APLS actually won three task orders, GAO upheld three separate protests against them, underscoring the volatility of competition in one of the Pentagon’s most consequential logistics programs.
Representatives for APLS, KBR, and the Army remained silent Friday when pressed for comment.
GAO attorneys Edward Goldstein and Kenneth E. Patton helped draft the ruling.
APLS is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, Jeffrey M. Lowry, and Michael P. Ols of Vedder Price PC.
The Army is represented by Wade L. Brown, while KBR relies on Seth H. Locke of WilmerHale.
