Oready (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Oready, LLC (2)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Dismissed
441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: Oready, LLC File: B-423649; B-423650; B-423670; B-423670.2 Date: September 25, 2025 Michael Farro for the protester. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests challenging the terms of multiple solicitations are dismissed as an abuse of GAO’s bid protest process where the protester’s repeated use of non-existent citations or decisions in its protest submissions undermines the integrity of GAO’s bid protest forum. DECISION Oready, LLC, a small business located in Las Vegas, Nevada, protests the terms of three requests for quotations (RFQs) issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), for various educational support services. The protester principally argues that the key personnel requirements in each solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition. We find that the protester included citations to non-existent decisions or materially false representations of the factual or legal issues addressed in the cited decisions in its pleadings which we hereinafter refer to as non-existent citations or decisions. We dismiss the protests for abuse of GAO’s bid protest process based on the protester’s repeated submission of non-existent citations or decisions to support its protest. BACKGROUND The stated objective of these procurements is to obtain educational support services at various schools. By way of background, on May 9, 2025, Oready filed a pre-award
Page 2 B-423649 et al. protest challenging the terms of RFQ No. 140A2325Q0137 (RFQ 0137)1 for a school counselor at the Pine Ridge School in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, which we docketed as B-423524. In that protest, Oready alleged that the key personnel requirements were unduly restrictive of competition, and we subsequently dismissed the protest as academic based on the agency’s proposed corrective action. Oready, LLC, B-423524, June 5, 2025 (unpublished decision). However, in dismissing the protest, we specifically noted that the agency had identified three of Oready’s citations to decisions from our Office that were either fictitious or materially inaccurate. Id. In this regard, we stated: While we need not resolve whether the citations provided in the initial protest were accurate in light of the agency’s cancellation of the challenged solicitation, the protester is specifically advised that the submission of filings to our Office in future protests with citations to non-existent authority may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions. See Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, May 7, 2025, 2025 CPD 112. Id. at 2 n.1. Thereafter, the agency issued an amendment to RFQ 0137 clarifying, among other things, the key personnel requirements. On June 26, Oready again filed a pre-award protest challenging RFQ 0137 alleging that the amended key personnel requirements were unduly restrictive of competition. We docketed this protest as B-423524.2, which we subsequently dismissed as academic based on the agency’s voluntary proposed corrective action. Oready, LLC, B-423524.2, Aug. 13, 2025, 2025 CPD 194 at 4. However, in that decision we also addressed the question of additional citations to non-existent decisions or materially false representations of the factual or legal issues addressed in the cited decisions in Oready’s pleadings filed with our Office. See, id. at 5-6. We requested that Oready address discrepancies as to five cited decisions and provide copies of the cited decisions with its response. Id. at 6. In its response, Oready stated: The research was conducted in-house by our small, non-attorney team using publicly available sources (e.g., GAO digests/abstracts and internal templates) under tight deadlines, without legal subscription databases. Errors arose from manual mismatches in secondary summaries. We have implemented peer-review, primary-source reliance, and gao.gov URL verification to prevent recurrence. 1 For ease of reference, we refer to the RFQ using the last four numbers of each solicitation. Citations to the solicitations are to copies provided with the underlying protests filed by the protester.
Page 3 B-423649 et al. Id. at 7. Our Office reviewed the protester’s explanations and concluded that “Oready’s patently erroneous citations are far removed from mere typographical or scrivener’s errors, and instead, bear the hallmarks of the use of a large-language model or other artificial intelligence (AI) without adequate verification that the generated results were accurate.” Id.2 As we explained in our decision, the key problem was not whether the protester used AI or indeed any other means of research to support its protest arguments; the problem was that the protester did not take care to verify its research and ensure its citations and descriptions of cases were accurate. The fact that the protester was not represented by counsel did not relieve it from this responsibility. In this regard, we make no distinction between protests filed by those represented by counsel and protests filed by those not represented by counsel. In order to satisfy our statutory mandate to resolve protests expeditiously and to maintain our role as a meaningful, efficient protest forum, we stated that all parties are expected to prepare and present their cases carefully and diligently. Id., citing Wolverton Prop. Mgmt., LLC--Recon., B-415295.4, June 6, 2018, 2018 CPD 205 at 3. In sum, we again cautioned Oready that failure to prepare and present its protest(s) carefully and diligently might result in imposition of sanctions by our Office. Oready, LLC, supra at 8. Turning then to these three pending pre-award protests, Oready primarily alleges that the key personnel requirements in each solicitation were unduly restrictive of competition. Oready’s first protest concerns RFQ No. 140A2325Q0062 (RFQ 0062) which was issued on February 7, 2025, pursuant to the acquisition of commercial items procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subpart 13.5. RFQ 0062 at 3.3 As amended, the RFQ sought quotations on an unrestricted basis for a speech language therapist at St. 2 We cited several decisions by federal courts in which the use of AI was addressed. See, e.g., Powhatan Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Skinger, No. 3:24cv874, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104564 at *21 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2025) (“The issue of AI programs populating and citing to fake or nonexistent legal authority, what has become known as AI ‘hallucinations,’ is an issue for courts that is becoming far too common.”); Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, No. 17-cv-81140, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98418 at *11 (S.D. Fl. May 20, 2025) (explaining that “there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,” but noting that “the evolving technology has many glitches (including hallucinations) and does not always work properly or as expected,” and “[t]his is why close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets”). See Oready, LLC, B-423524.2, supra at 7. 3 RFQ 0062 was amended four times. Unless otherwise noted, citations to the RFQ in this decision refer to the initial RFQ.
Page 4 B-423649 et al. Stephens Indian School located in St. Stephens, Wyoming. RFQ 0062 amend. 1 at 1. The solicitation designated the speech language therapist as key personnel. RFQ 0062 at 5. Oready’s protest of this solicitation was docketed by our Office as B-423649. Next, on May 22, 2025, the agency issued RFQ No. 140A2325Q0108 (RFQ 0108) on an unrestricted basis pursuant to the procedures of FAR part 12 and FAR subpart 13.5 for the services of an occupational therapist at the John F. Kennedy Day School located in White River, Arizona. RFQ 0108 at 4. The solicitation designated the occupational therapist as key personnel. Id. at 6. Oready’s protest of this solicitation was docketed by our Office as B-423650. Finally, on June 16, 2025, the agency issued RFQ No. 140A2325Q0173 (RFQ 0173), as a small business set-aside pursuant to the procedures of FAR part 12 and FAR subpart 13.5, for the services of a school psychologist at the Havasupai Elementary School, located in Supai, Arizona. RFQ 0173 at 5. The solicitation designated the school psychologist as key personnel. Id. at 7. Oready’s initial and supplemental protests of this solicitation were docketed by our Office as B-423670.1, B-423670.2. Relevant here, each RFQ’s submission instructions require vendors to include certain information in their technical quotations regarding their proposed key personnel. For example, RFQ 0062 instructed vendors to provide the following information for the speech language therapist designated as key personnel: • Availability & Commitment: The contractor shall provide a signed and dated commitment letter to include length of time with the quote. • Onsite Service: The key personnel commitment shall clearly address its ability to provide onsite service. • If identified key personnel are not currently employed by your firm, a written statement signed by the individual must accompany the resume indicating the individual's commitment to join your firm as an employee in the event of an award. Quoters are cautioned to verify the continued availability of individuals proposed. • Experience & Qualifications: The contractor shall provide resume, certifications, and direct contact information of key personnel with the quote. Key personnel shall possess the necessary knowledge, skills, qualifications, and ability to perform the service being requested. The resume shall clearly [demonstrate] such qualifications and experience providing Speech-Language Therapy service in school setting. RFQ 0062 (B-423649) at 22. The key personnel requirements described in RFQ 0108, for an occupational therapist, and in RFQ 0173, for a school psychologist, are substantially similar, although not
Page 5 B-423649 et al. identical, to the above-quoted RFQ language. See RFQ 0108 (B-423650) at 25, 26; RFQ 0173 (B-423670.1, B-423670.2) at 26. DISCUSSION Oready raises two primary arguments to the terms of the RFQs: (1) the requirement for vendors to submit signed commitment letters from non-employees, binding them to post-award availability for 120 days, is commercially unreasonable and restricts competition; and (2) the requirement that vendors identify and provide direct contact information for key personnel prior to award is unreasonable since, in its view, such a requirement “exceeds the boundaries set by FAR 37.104 [governing personal services contracts which by its express terms, or as administered, makes contractor personnel appear to be government employees] and improperly shifts performance risk to individual workers rather than holding the contractor accountable.” Protest at 2. As a threshold issue, the agency requests dismissal of each protest, arguing that Oready’s protests advance speculative and conclusory arguments that were either legally or factually insufficient, that the protester failed to establish competitive prejudice, and failed to establish its interested party status. See generally, Req. for Dismissal at 2-8. We reviewed the agency’s request for dismissals and the protester’s objections thereto and deferred ruling on the agency’s request for dismissals at that time. We instructed the agency to file its agency report in response to each protest and Oready to file its comments in response to the agency reports. Resp. to Req. for Dismissal. Thereafter, during a review of Oready’s protests and its subsequent filings, our Office identified three groups of problematic citations in the protester’s filings. Specifically, across Oready’s three protests we identified filings that: (1) refer to fabricated or non-existent decisions; (2) fabricated or non-existent legal conclusions of decisions issued by our Office; or (3) otherwise objectively do not stand for the factual or legal propositions asserted by Oready. See, Electronic Protest Docketing System (Dkt.) No. 11, GAO Notice of Problematic Citations & Req. for Briefing, July 30, 2025. In the first group of citations as the following representative examples reflect, many of the protester’s citations are simply non-existent or fabricated. Specifically, either the decisions themselves or the material facts and legal issues addressed in the cited decisions do not exist and are entirely fabricated, as they do not correlate to any existing GAO bid protest decision. Taking one example, the protester argued that “[w]here a solicitation is amended post-submission to accommodate a single bidder, GAO has held that such actions are improper unless clearly justified and executed in a way that preserves meaningful competition,” and cited the following purported decisions of our Office for support “Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., B-417212.2, and System Studies & Simulation, Inc., B-416693.” Protest at 2.
Page 6 B-423649 et al. The problem is that neither of these decisions exist; neither “B” file number was ever issued or utilized by our Office.4 More concerning, when our Office sought an explanation of these discrepancies from Oready, the protester represented that these were, respectively, a “[t]ypographic error” and “error,” without any further explanation for how these fabricated case citations were merely scrivener’s errors. Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing at 2. We find this explanation unpersuasive. The second set of non-existent citations or decisions involve citations that merge the name of a protester from a published decision with a B-file number from another published decision where the B-file number involves matters that stand for entirely different facts or propositions of law. In this regard, merging the name of a protester from one published decision with the B-file number from a separate published decision, results in the creation of a citation to a nonexistent decision. As an example, in its opposition to the agency’s first request for dismissal of protest B-423649, the protester argued that “[i]t is improper for an agency to use unstated evaluation criteria as a pass/fail standard” and cites for support to “JRS Staffing Services, B-409407 (Apr. 2, 2014).” See Dkt. No. 6, Opp. to Req. for Dismissal at 4. Our Office has issued numerous decisions utilizing the name JRS Staffing Services, but we have not issued the decision cited by the protester. See e.g., JRS Staffing Services, B-408202, July 16, 2013, 2013 CPD 175; JRS Staffing Services--Costs, B-410708.3, Nov. 9, 2015, 2015 CPD 349. In addition, the cited B-number, B-409407, does not involve JRS Staffing Services or any matter involving unstated evaluation criteria. Rather, the cited B-number relates to our decision in JCMS, B-409407, Apr. 8, 2014, 2014 CPD 125. In that decision, our Office dismissed a protest challenging an award made allegedly below cost because whether a bidder can perform, even where the bid price is below cost, involves the agency’s affirmative responsibility determination of that bidder’s responsibility, which we generally will not review absent inapplicable circumstances. The words “unstated evaluation criteria” do not appear in the decision utilizing the B-file number B-409407. In sum, our Office has not issued a decision using the name JRS Staffing Services citing the B-file number, B-409407, and the decision using that B-file number does not stand for the proposition cited by the protester. When pressed for an explanation by our Office for how a fabricated decision supported its protest arguments, the protester alleged that the “[h]olding supports unstated criteria.” Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing at 2. Setting aside the obvious fact that a nonexistent decision’s conclusion could not reasonably support the protester’s argument, as noted above, nowhere in that decision do the words “unstated evaluation criteria” appear. The protester’s explanation is unpersuasive since an objective reading 4 Our Office did issue a decision in Alexandra Constr., Inc., B-417212, Apr. 2, 2019, 2019 CPD 132, but that decision involved a post-award protest challenging the reasonableness of an agency’s evaluation of experience and past performance and is not germane to any allegation raised by Oready.
Page 7 B-423649 et al. of the decision should have led the protester to realize it did not stand for this proposition. This type of misrepresentation of GAO’s decisions evidences a gross disregard for our bid protest process, which relies on the parties identifying accurate and relevant legal authorities.5 In this regard, not only did the protester fabricate a citation for a decision that does not exist by merging an unrelated party’s name with a citation for an entirely unrelated protest involving legally and factually distinct issues, but it then falsely generated a purported conclusion based on the fictitious citation that it fabricated. Such conduct is abusive. See, e.g., United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1065-66 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (sanctioning counsel where counsel in its brief submitted a citation including a case attributed to the wrong party, but a real citation to a different, unrelated case issued by a different court). With regard to the third set of flawed citations at issue, the protester in some cases cited existing decisions, but fabricated the relevant facts and conclusions of such decisions. For example, in protest B-423670, Oready argued that “[i]n Kathpal Technologies, Inc., B-291637.2 (Apr. 10, 2003), GAO sustained a protest where the agency required letters of intent without demonstrating that such a requirement was necessary to meet the government’s needs.” Protest (B-423670) at 1. Our Office did issue a decision in Kathpal Technologies, Inc., B-291637.2, Apr. 10, 2003, 2003 CPD 69; that decision, however, had nothing to do with letters of intent or any other allegedly unduly restrictive solicitation requirement. Rather than sustaining a protest based on a failure of the agency to demonstrate why letters of intent should be a requirement of the procurement, the decision in fact denied a post-award challenge to the agency’s evaluation of past performance. These legal concepts are entirely different; the words “letters of intent” do not appear in the Kathpal decision. In response to our inquiry, Oready conceded, without further elaboration, that the citation was “[e]rroneous.” Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing. Our Office finds no basis to conclude that this was a mere clerical error by an unrepresented party; the record demonstrates that the protester used fabricated facts and legal discussion to advance its claims. Again, Oready’s actions in these recent protests demonstrate its reckless disregard in advancing non-existent citations or decisions in its protest submissions. 5 We additionally note that in its opposition to the agency’s first request for dismissal in protest B-423650, Oready argues that “[i]t is improper for an agency to use unstated evaluation criteria as a pass/fail standard,” citing to “JRS Staffing Services, B-409407.7, Apr. 2, 2014, 2014 CPD 116.” See Dkt. No. 5, Opp. to Req. For Dismissal, at 3-4. No such B-number exists. As to the CPD Reporter, that citation is for Government and Military Certification Sys., Inc., B-409420, Apr. 2, 2014, 2014 CPD 116, a decision where our Office denied a challenge to the terms of a solicitation for recertification audit services where the agency adequately explained the rationale for the restrictive specifications with regard to contractor accreditation. In response to our inquiry, the protester merely offered that the error was a “[t]ypo.” Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing.
Page 8 B-423649 et al. As addressed above, we directed the protester to provide an explanation for the non-existent citations or decisions identified by our Office and to provide copies of the cited decisions with its response. GAO Email to Oready, July 30, 2025; see also Dkt. No. 11. In addition to the short responses reflected in the representative examples above, Oready’s response states, in relevant part, as follows: We acknowledge the concerns, particularly in light of Oready LLC, B-423524 (June 5, 2025), and have verified all references against GAO's database to ensure accuracy. Errors resulted from clerical issues during manual research under deadlines; we have implemented peer-review to prevent recurrence. We understand that GAO may impose sanctions for filings that are frivolous or in bad faith pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.10. However, sanctions are not typically warranted for inadvertent clerical errors that are promptly explained and corrected. See, e.g., Raven Investigations & Sec. Consulting, LLC, B-423447, May 7, 2025 (declining to impose sanctions where protester explained manual citation errors). We respectfully request that our explanations be accepted in this spirit. Detailed explanations for each of the 15 citations are provided below. . . . Where we erred, we have proposed a correct and more relevant authority. As in Logistics Management Institute, B-417601 (various dates, e.g., 2018), sanctions are unwarranted where inaccuracies do not rise to frivolity and are corrected promptly. Similarly, in Wright Brothers Aero, Inc., B-423326.2, GAO accepted explanations of manual citation errors without sanctions, proceeding to merits review. Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing at 1. We similarly find this explanation unpersuasive. The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557. In fulfilling our mandate under CICA to provide for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of bid protests, we necessarily reserve an inherent right to dismiss any protest, and to impose sanctions against a protester, where a protester’s actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of our process. Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, May 7, 2025, 2025 CPD 112 at 4 citing BBGSRO Constr. S.R.L., B-423091, B-423091.2, Jan. 21, 2025, 2025 CPD 40 at 6-8; Latvian Connection LLC, B-413442, Aug. 18, 2016, 2016 CPD 194 at 6; PWC Logistics Servs. Co. KSC(c), B-310559, Jan. 11, 2008, 2008 CPD 25 at 12. The inherent right of dispute forums to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices is widely recognized and has been characterized by the Supreme Court as “ancient [in] origin” and governed not by rule or statute, but by the control necessarily vested in a forum to manage its own affairs. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper et al., 44 U.S. 752, 765 (1980).
Page 9 B-423649 et al. Our decision here turns on Oready’s repeated submission of non-existent citations or decisions, as evidenced in the multiple protests filed with our Office subsequent to our June 5 initial notice to the protester that submission of future protests with misleading or inaccurate citations might result in imposition of sanctions. See Oready, LLC, B-423524, supra at 2 n.1. Nonetheless, on June 20, Oready filed two pre-award protests, docketed as B-423649 and B-423650, respectively. A third protest by Oready was filed on June 25, docketed as B-423670, and as supplemented on June 26, docketed as B-423670.2. As noted above, these were the protests in which our Office identified the significant number of non-existent citations or decisions in Oready’s protest submissions. The protester’s characterization of these objectively false citations as inaccuracies or inadvertent clerical errors are unavailing. Indeed, the protester’s explanation that a particular incorrect citation was a “mismatch,” “inapt,” simply “erroneous,” or a “typo [typographic]” error, strains credulity and the protester fails to reasonably explain its repeated submission of non-existent citations or decisions in its protests and subsequent submissions.6 See Dkt. No. 8, Resp. to GAO Req. for Briefing at 2-3. Turning to the question of whether the protester’s repeated submission of non-existent citations or decisions warrant sanction, all parties have an obligation to confirm that arguments and decisions cited to our Office are supported by existing law, and a failure to do so is sanctionable. See, e.g., Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., No. 20-cv-04482-YGR (DMR), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143212 at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2025) (“[The party’s] self-represented status does not permit him to submit information blindly.”); Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, No. 22-CV-02126-CDS-BNW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78049 at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2025) (“[Plaintiff] contends that his use of artificial 6 The protester does not concede its use of AI in the preparation of its protest filings as the source of the fabricated citations, stating: “All research was conducted manually by Oready’s small, non-attorney leadership team. The errors stemmed from flaws in our internal research process under tight deadlines, which we have now overhauled.” See Dkt. No. 10, Opp. to Agency’s Consolidated Req. for Dismissal at 1. However, our decision here is not based on the use of AI as a method of research; it is based on the protester’s repeated reliance on non-existent citations or decisions without verifying their correctness and applicability to the arguments being presented. Other forums have identified issues that result from the use of AI. See, e.g., Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 169 n.8 (Fed. Cl. 2025) (collecting citations and explaining that “[f]ake cases generated by AI often have reporter citations that lead to cases with different names, in different courts, and about different subjects”). As we discussed in a prior decision involving the protester, there is nothing “inherently wrong with [a party] properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets . . . fact-checking and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets”). Oready, B-423524.2, supra at 7 (quoting Versant Funding LLC v. Texas Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, supra).
Page 10 B-423649 et al. intelligence should not be grounds for dismissal because he is pro se and disabled. [However, t]his is no excuse for submitting non-existent authority to the court in support of a brief.”); Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, No. 23-CV-353-WPJ/JMR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190181 at *18 (D. N.M. Oct. 23, 2023) (“Although courts ‘make some allowances for the pro se Plaintiff’s failure to cite to proper legal authority,’ courts do not make allowances for a Plaintiff who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities.”) (quotation omitted). We further underscore here the material aggravating factor that the protester’s misconduct in submitting non-existent citations or decisions was not a single occurrence, but, rather, included a multitude of such problematic citations and decisions across multiple protests. Most troubling, the misconduct continued after GAO explicitly warned the protester of the potential for sanctions if such misconduct persisted. See Oready, B-423524, supra. Under these circumstances, appropriate sanctions for abuse of the GAO bid protest process are warranted. See, e.g., Byoplanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson, Nos. 0:25-cv-60630, 60646, 60647, and 60712, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144449 at *21 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2025) (dismissing multiple related cases where counsel “despite being on notice that his use of AI resulted in hallucinated cases and quotations, [counsel] continued to make submissions to the Court and using AI without checking the veracity of cases and citations submitted to the Court and his adversaries”); Mojtabavi v. Blinken, No. SA CV 24-1359 PA (ASx), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225418 at *7-9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2024) (dismissing case where, after a prior warning, a pro se party’s filings continued to be “filled with inaccurate and/or falsified case citations,” with “[s]everal of the citations yield[ing] no [search] results, while others correspond[ed] with different, unrelated cases”). Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, we view Oready’s continued submission of pleadings with nonexistent citations and decisions as inconsistent with, and undermining, the integrity of our Office’s bid protest process. The multiple irregularities discussed above, which necessarily wastes the time of all parties and GAO in searching for and attempting to reconcile fabricated decisions, is at odds with the statutory mandate that our bid protest forum provide for “the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests.” 31 U.S.C. § 3554(a)(1); see Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, supra at 4. As we have explained, our authority to impose dismissal or other appropriate sanctions against a protester is an inherent right and we exercise that right here in response to Oready’s continuing actions, which undermines the integrity and effectiveness of our proceedings. See e.g., BBGSRO Constr. S.R.L., supra at 7-8. The protests are dismissed. Edda Emmanuelli Perez General Counsel
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access