New In its initial protest, Yang argued that the agency erred in failing to perform an adequate cost realism evaluation of the ASRC proposal. The agency provided our Office and the other parties a detailed agency report responding to Yang's protest. Specifically, the agency argued both that the protest was procedurally inadequate (because, according to the agency, Yang is not an interested party to pursue this protest, and because the protest is factually and legally insufficient), and that it should be denied because the agency performed an adequate cost realism evaluation. The agency report also included documentation of the agency's cost realism evaluation of the ASRC proposal. In response to the agency's detailed report, Yang's comments, in their entirety, provided as follows:

Protestor has carefully reviewed the Agency Report. It is Protestor's position that the Report, and supporting documentation, do not contain sufficient analysis of the relation of the technical portions of ASRC's proposal to the cost analysis to justify the conclusion that the cost realism analysis performed by the Air Force was thorough, complete and accurate. For that reason, Protestor continues to maintain the position set forth in its protest to your Office and requests the relief set forth therein.

Protester's Comments, Feb 26, 2018. After receiving the protester's comments, the agency requested that our Office dismiss Yang's protest as abandoned based on the brevity of its comments. In response to the agency's request, the protester provided the following additional statement:

Protestor has not abandoned its protest position. We respectfully disagree with the position of [agency counsel]. We understand the holding of the decision he cites but in the instant case it is Protestor's position that the arguments in the Protest are still valid and are not satisfied by the information provided in the Agency Report.

Protester's E-mail, Feb. 27, 2018.

We dismiss the protest as abandoned. As we have noted, in responding to an agency report, protesters are required to provide a substantive response to the arguments advanced by the agency. enrGies, Inc., B-408609.9, May 21, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 158 at 4. Where a protester merely references earlier arguments advanced in an initial protest without providing a substantive response to the agency's position, our Office will dismiss the referenced allegations as abandoned. Id. Similarly, a protester's statement, without elaboration, that its initial arguments "are maintained" also will result in the dismissal of the arguments as abandoned. Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543, et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 104 at 8 n.4.

Here, Yang has failed to provide a response to the arguments advanced in the agency report. Yang has not provided a substantive or meaningful response to the agency's arguments on the merits regarding the propriety of its cost realism evaluation. Instead, the protester merely maintains--without elaboration--its view that the agency report does not contain sufficient analysis of the relation between the awardee's technical proposal and the agency's cost evaluation. However, Yang has not explained the basis for its conclusion or identified what documentation in the record it believes is inadequate.

Similarly, Yang has not rebutted--or even responded to--the agency's procedural arguments. As noted, the agency maintains that Yang is not an interested party and that its protest is factually and legally insufficient. Yang's failure to respond to these arguments made by the agency leave us to question both Yang's interested party status to maintain its protest, as well as the legal sufficiency of its original filing.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that Yang has abandoned its protest. We therefore dismiss it without considering the merits of its arguments.

The protest is dismissed.  (Yang Enterprises, Inc. B-415923: Mar 12, 2018)

The Air Force also requested that Boeing produce certain broad categories of documents bearing upon, among other things, Boeing’s interpretation of the solicitation and several of its protest allegations. Boeing objected to that request, asserting that the documents sought were not relevant. The agency responded that its request was reasonable and limited, and sought relevant documents, which would be “necessary to allow GAO to perform a complete and accurate review of the issues in Boeing’s protests.” Air Force’s Response to Boeing’s Objection to Air Force’s Document Production Request (Apr. 11, 2008) at 1. Our Bid Protest Regulations provide, in pertinent part, that “[i]n appropriate cases, the contracting agency may request that the protester produce relevant documents, or portions of documents, that are not in the agency’s possession.” 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.3(d). 

We denied the Air Force’s request, because our regulations do not provide for broad agency request for documents whose existence and relevance are not at all apparent.[38] Rather, our regulations are intended to permit a contracting agency, in an appropriate case, to request a specific relevant document or documents, of which the agency is aware and does not itself possess. See 60 Fed. Reg. 40737, 40738 (wherein, in establishing this rule, we indicated that our regulations were not intended to allow “wide-open” document requests of protesters); see also Bid Protests at GAO: A Descriptive Guide, 8th ed. 2006, at 28, in which our Office described the purpose for our “reverse discovery” rule as follows:

Occasionally, the agency may be aware of the existence of relevant documents that only the protester possesses. In appropriate cases, the agency may request that the protester produce those documents.

(The Boeing Company, B-311344; B-311344.3; B-311344.4; B-311344.6; B-311344.7; B-311344.8; B-311344.10; B-311344.11, June 18, 2008) (pdf)