GAO Dismisses 4K Global-ACC JV's Request for Reconsideration on PLA Protest
In a recent decision dated April 11, 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed 4K Global-ACC JV, LLC's request for reconsideration of its earlier protest denial in connection with the award of a contract issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. In the original protest, 4K Global challenged the Corps' rejection of its proposal based on a non-compliant Project Labor Agreement (PLA). The Corps found that 4K Global’s submitted PLA did not meet the basic definition required under FAR provisions 52.222-33 and 52.222-34, as it was signed only by the offeror without evidence of any labor organization participation, a critical element under the solicitation requirements.
4K Global’s argument for reconsideration relied heavily on a U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision issued after the GAO’s protest ruling, MVL USA, Inc., et al. v. United States. In that case, the COFC struck down an executive order mandate concerning PLA requirements for certain solicitations. 4K Global contended that the MVL decision invalidated the legal foundation supporting the GAO's denial of its protest. However, the GAO firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing that reconsideration requires a demonstration of factual or legal errors existing at the time of the original decision, not merely a change in the law or subsequent judicial developments. The GAO noted that its office is not bound by decisions of the COFC and that the MVL ruling, even if accepted, was procedurally and substantively distinct from the circumstances presented in 4K Global’s protest.
Significantly, the GAO pointed out that while MVL involved timely pre-award challenges to solicitation terms, 4K Global’s protest was a post-award challenge to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. As the GAO explained, under its regulations, objections to solicitation terms must be raised before the close of bidding. Since 4K Global waited until after award to argue that the PLA requirements were unreasonable, its protest on that basis was untimely. Moreover, the GAO concluded that even if the MVL decision had some interpretive relevance, it was explicitly limited to the solicitations at issue in that case and had no retroactive effect on the Corps' actions or the GAO’s earlier decision. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was dismissed.
This decision serves as an important reminder for federal contractors that reconsideration requests must demonstrate errors existing in the record at the time of the original decision, not rely solely on later changes in the law. It also highlights the strict procedural rules requiring that challenges to solicitation requirements be brought before the closing date for proposals. Contractors must be vigilant about the timing and basis of their protests if they hope to preserve their rights.
Disclaimer:
This blog post is a summary for informational purposes only. It is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up to date and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult official GAO decisions or a qualified attorney for legal guidance.
