Stan Hinton

Contact Me
2018 Blog
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2017 Procurement Review
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Agency Sites
More Agencies

Successful GAO Protests (2005-Present)

See also Successful GAO Protests (2000-2004)


Announcement of Competition; Solicitation Language and Interpretation


ORBIS Sibro, Inc., B-415714, .2 (Feb. 26, 2018) (agency unreasonably adjusted protester's total price upward in cost realism analysis, essentially revising protester's prices again for adjustments already made in the evaluation)

Western Pilot Service, et al., B-415732, .2, .3, .4  (Mar. 6, 2018) (flight services sought under task order request for proposals for extended, guaranteed periods of performance are beyond scope of protesters' underlying IDIQ contracts)

Castro & Co., LLC., B-415508.4 (Feb. 13, 2018) (agency's limitations on scope of proposal revisions following corrective action unreasonably prohibited protester from revising all aspects of proposal materially impacted by corrective action)

Office Design Group, B-415411 (Jan. 3, 2018) (email from offeror to Contracting Officer expression confusion regarding whether amendment to solicitation had changed its status from an SDVOSB set-aside and requesting clarification constituted agency-level protest such that firm had 10 days from receipt of Contracting Officer's response in order to file timely GAO protest; solicitation amendment eliminating certain requirements for SDVOSB set-aside while retaining other language indicating the procurement was set aside created patent ambiguity)  

Pitney Bowes, Inc., B-413876.2 (Feb. 13, 2017) (specifications are unduly restrictive of competition because agency failed to establish they were required to meet its needs)

Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc., B-413924 (Jan. 12, 2017) (agency provided no consistent, rational explanation for canceling solicitation and extending contract of incumbent)

Bluehorse Corp., B-413533 (Oct. 28, 2016) (RFQ, which was not electronically advertised, was sent only to three potential offerors, one of whom was unlikely to be able to provide the required items (and did not provide a quote), and was placed in a binder inside a closed government building on a Saturday with a response due by Monday, did not satisfy competition requirements for solicitations of commercial items using streamlined procedures of FAR 12.6)

Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., B-413373 (Oct. 14, 2016) (agency's attempted justifications for restricting solicitation to certain brand name items did not have rational basis and did not comply with requirements of FAR Part 13 regarding simplified acquisition procedures)

Red River Waste Solutions, LP, B-411760.2 (Jan. 20, 2016) (in solicitation issued pursuant to FAR Part 12, agency’s market research failed to reasonably support the agency’s determination that the solicitation’s pricing terms were consistent with customary commercial practice)

DRS Technical Services, Inc., B-411573.2, .3 (Nov. 9, 2015) (solicitation’s evaluation scheme failed to account for differences in offerors’ transition plans and effectively penalized offerors that proposed to provide full staffing and operational performance on the first day of the task order and rewarded offers that proposed a phased approach to staffing and performance)

Eastern Forestry, B-411848 (Nov. 9, 2015) (publishing substantive amendment to solicitation at 7 p.m. on eve of 10 a.m. bid opening did not leave bidder sufficient time to submit required hard copy of bid)

XTec, Inc., B-410778.3 (Oct. 1, 2015) (agency’s inadequate advance planning led to issuance (and then cancellation) of solicitation with insufficiently detailed statement of requirements; protester entitled to bid preparation and protest costs)

Harris IT Services Corp., B-411699, -411796 (Oct. 2, 2015) (two solicitations issued to multiple award IDIQ contractors under DHS’s tactical communications (TacCom) program impermissibly (in violation of FASA): (i) contemplate the issuance of what amounts to a single, second-tier IDIQ instrument, under which the agency will place subsequent delivery orders, without providing the multiple-award IDIQ contract holders a subsequent, fair opportunity to compete for those delivery orders; (ii) contemplate the issuance of delivery orders that potentially exceed the scope of the underlying IDIQ contracts; and (iii) include restrictive specifications (effectively limiting competition to Motorola products) that have not been justified)

Global Technical Systems, B-411230.2 (Sep. 9, 2015) (solicitation for engineering services stated only vague requirements and did not contain sufficient information for offerors to compete on  common basis)

SCB Solutions, Inc.--Reconsideration, B- (Aug. 12, 2015) (solicitation did not provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and on fair and equal basis)

Smith and Nephew, Inc., B-410453 (Jan. 2, 2015) (specification is unduly restrictive of competition where agency has not established it actually needs requirement)

Raymond Express International, B-409872.2 (Nov. 6, 2014) (price evaluation scheme in solicitation is ambiguous)

Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Feb. 6, 2014) (agency failed to articulate rational basis for solicitation's refusal to consider experience and past performance even of affiliates with firm commitments to perform part of the work)

Verizon Wireless, B-406854, .2  (Sep. 16, 2012) (solicitation to establish BPAs with FSS contractors for commercial items and services pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4 was not supported by adequate market research to demonstrate that the solicitation terms were consistent with customary commercial practice (and not unduly restrictive of competition) as required by FAR 12.301(a)(2))

Asiel Enterprises, Inc. B-406780, 406836 (Aug. 28, 2012) (Air Force lacked authority to transfer of mission essential food service requirements to NAFI on a non-competitive basis and without a sole-source justification)

Aldevra, B-406774 et al., (Aug. 21, 2012) (VA failed to consider whether FSS solicitation should be set aside for SDVOSBs)

Assisted Housing Services Corp., B-406738, et al., (Aug. 15, 2012) (agency should have issued solicitation for contract administration services rather than using notice of funding availability leading to cooperative agreement)

Clark/Foulger-Pratt JV, B-406627, .2 (July 23, 2012) (no basis in the record for raising awardee's rating or for SSA's conclusion that two offers were technically equal, where that conclusion appeared  to be at variance with contemporaneous record of evaluation)

DNO, Inc., B-406256, .2 (Mar. 22, 2012) (agency did not properly investigate whether solicitation should be set aside for small businesses)

Aldevra, B-406205 (Mar. 14, 2012) (VA failed to consider whether solicitation should be set aside for SDVOSBs)

InfraMap Corp., B-405167.6  (Feb. 6, 2012) (estimate of future underground utility relocation work in solicitation lacked rational basis and likely was significantly understated)

CWTSatoTravel, B-404479.2 (Apr. 22, 2011) (solicitation ambiguous as to whether objectives are optional or required)

USA Jet Airlines, B-404666 (Apr. 1, 2011) (solicitation requirement offerors present evidence of certification under ISO 9001, ISO 9100, or AS 9110 at the time of proposal submission, rather than at the time of award or performance, exceeds agency's minimum needs and unduly restricts competition)

California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc. d/b/a CAMSS Shelters, B-403397.3 (Mar. 21, 2011) (solicitation that required brand name products without listing salient characteristics that would permit offers of equivalent alternates was unduly restrictive of competition and was issued without an appropriate J&A authorizing such a restriction)

NCS Technologies, B-403435 (Nov. 8, 2010) (solicitation provisions requiring (i) computers and monitors to be from same manufacturer and (ii) computers to have Intel-based microprocessors were unduly restrictive of competition)

Missouri Machinery & Engineering Co., B-403561 (Nov. 18, 2010) (solicitation requirement for vendors to be an original equipment manufacturer's authorized repair facility is unduly restrictive where the agency does not show the requirement is necessary to meet its needs)

Total Health Resources, B-403209 (Oct. 4, 2010) (solicitation requirement for prime's experience is unduly restrictive where agency cannot establish sub's experience would not suffice)

TMI Management Systems, Inc. B-401530 (Sep. 28, 2009) (agency's misclassification of procurement in announcement on FedBizOpps website failed to achieve full and open competition)

TFab Manufacturing, LLC, B-401190 (June 18, 2009) (defective solicitation; improper requirements concerning "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause)

PWC Logistics Services Co., B-400660 (Jan. 6, 2009) (defective solicitation terms re proposal evaluation)

Seaborn Health Care, Inc., B-400429 (Oct. 27, 2008) (improper requirement for non-FSS supervisory services in RFQ limited to FSS contractors)

TYBRIN Corp., B-298364.6, .7 (Mar. 13, 2007) ("Limitation on Subcontracting" clause)

CW Government Travel, Inc.--Reconsideration; B-295530.2, et al, July 25, 2005 (solicitation terms)

Technosource Information Systems, LLC; TrueTandem, LLC, B-405296, .2, .3 (Oct. 17, 2011) (agency failed to establish any legitimate government need for solicitation requirement that any non-U.S.-based cloud computing data centers be located in Trade Agreements Act Designated Countries) 


Flawed Evaluations; Lack of Meaningful Discussions


Savannah River Technology & Remediation LLC, B-415637, et al. (Feb. 8, 2018) (record does not show that agency evaluated viability of awardee's proposed technical approach as required by solicitation)

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., B-415497 (Jan. 18, 2018) (source selection decision did not include any comparison of proposals that explained the conclusion that the awardee's proposal was superior to the protester's)

Transworld Systems, Inc., B-414090.13, .14, .15, .16 (Dec. 22, 2017) (agency did not evaluate quotations equally where record fails to show the basis for assigning a weakness to the protester's proposal for an omission shared by the awardees' quotations, which were not assigned aweakness)

BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., B-414931.2, .3 (Dec. 20, 2017) (awardee's proposal did not include sufficient information for agency to assess whether its proposed personnel met solicitation's minimum experience requirements)

Harper Construction Co., B-415042, .2 (Nov. 7, 2017) (offeror's interpretation of latently ambiguous solicitation language to permit it to submit projects for evaluation under Experience factor on which, as prime, it had supervised and been responsible for, the work of subcontractors actually performing the work was reasonable, and agency's rejection of proposal based on contrary interpretation prejudiced protester)

East Cost Utility Contractors, Ltd., B-516593, .2 (Jan. 16, 2018) (where solicitation provided for consideration of past performance of offerors' management team, agency improperly failed to consider past performance of one of protester's managers)

Red River Computer Co., B-414183.8, et al. (Dec. 22, 2017) (one of awardees failed to provide price discounts at BPA level as required by solicitation)

ENSCO, Inc; PAE National Security Solutions, LLC, B-414844, .2, .3 (Oct. 2, 2017) (agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal not in accordance with solicitation's evaluation criteria; agency's cost realism analysis not adequately documented; agency's assignment of significant weaknesses to protester's proposal not in accordance with stated evaluation criteria; agency improperly allowed awardee to exceed page limitation for resumes) 

Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-415155, .2 (Dec. 4, 2017) (record lacks reasonable explanation for SSA's decision to deviate from SSEB's assessment of strengths and weaknesses in proposals)

AdvanceMed Corp., B-415062, .2 (Nov. 17, 2017) (agency violated FAR and express terms of solicitation by failing to give meaningful consideration to impaired objectivity OCI implicated by contracts held by awardee's parent company; agency's determination that awardee's proposal was acceptable under 508 compliance factor was unreasonable where the compliance officer had found the awardee's system required remediation in order to be compliant and no such remediation occurred)

Protection Strategies, Inc., B-414648.2, .3 (Nov. 20, 2017) (agency did not have reasonable basis for evaluating awardee's proposed personnel as a strength; agency did not have reasonable basis to conclude differences between competitors' proposals in non-price factors were negligible)

Language Select, LLP, dba United Language Group, B-415097, .2 (Nov. 14, 2017) (agency held unfair discussions by asking only awardee about role of affiliated company in providing services; agency lacked reasonable basis for attributing affiliate's corporate experience to awardee; agency unreasonably minimized significance for awardee's proposal of prior termination for cause of similar contract)

Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, B-410486,9 (Jan. 28, 2017) (after prior corrective actions, agency evaluated proposals disparately under the staffing and resources factor, criticizing the protester's proposed approach as possibly involving a risk that it would not be able to recruit the incumbent workforce, while at the same time failing to meaningfully consider whether the awardee's proposed approach of repeatedly replacing its exempt employee workforce over the life of the contract posed a significant risk)

AT&T Corp., B-414886, .2, .3 (Oct. 5, 2017) (discussions were misleading and unequal where agency only advised awardee of proposal concern that agency also had with protester's proposal; agency failed to adequately document aspects of technical evaluation; SSA's source selection decision relies in significant part on conclusions based on issues not documented in the record)

L3 Unidyne, Inc. B-415902, .2, .3 (Oct. 16, 2017) (agency failed to evaluate whether awardee's requirement that certain newly hired key employees sign binding arbitration agreements violated statutory prohibition; agency unreasonably assigned a deficiency to protester's proposal related to its proposed Government Property Manager for working outside the commuting area identified by the solicitation and for the protester's failure to describe his duties fully because he was a non-key employee performing what DCMA recognized as a centralized function at the firm's office for more than just the contract at issue and any informational deficiency in describing duties fully did not rise to level of material deficiency; agency failed to evaluate significant differences in offerors' proposed staffing levels for various tasks)

McCann-Erickson  USA, Inc., B-414787 (Sep. 18, 2017)  (agency improperly disqualified proposal for failure to comply with certain proposal preparation instructions without evaluating proposal in accordance with solicitation's stated evaluation criteria)

CR/ZWS LLC, B-414766, .2 (Sep. 13, 2017) (awardee's proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirement)

The Arcanum Group, Inc., B-413682.2, .3 (Mar. 29, 2017) (record does not contain adequate explanation of SSA's decision to override SSEB's conclusion that awardee had not submitted sufficiently similar projects for past performance evaluation)

David Jones CPA PC, B-414701 (Aug. 25, 2017) (in solicitation to establish multiple BPAs, agency improperly excluded protester's proposal from further consideration solely on basis of single line-item price agency considered unreasonably high, without considering whether that would result in the agency paying an unreasonably high price for performance of a typical order under a BPA)

Global Language Center, B-413503.8 (June 1, 2017) (agency allowed only awardee to submit material changes to proposal after final proposal revisions were due; agency credited awardee for past performance without considering its relevance and failed to credit protester for its relevant performance as incumbent)

YWCA of Greater Los Angeles, B-414596, .2, .3 (July 24, 2017) (agency engaged in unequal discussions by permitting awardee to amend its proposal, after final proposal revisions, in order to substitute a new key person, without reopening discussions with other offerors)

SURVICE Engineering Co., LLC, B-414519 (July 5, 2017) (agency failed to evaluate awardee's professional compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(b), i.e., agency did not reasonably compare awardee's salaries to incumbent salaries, a necessary step to determine whether the proposed salaries are lower than incumbent salaries; agency evaluated proposals on unequal bases and utilized unstated evaluation criteria)

Global Aerospace Corp., B-414514 (July 3, 2017) (contemporaneous record does not include any analysis of protester's proposal at SMD recommendation phase and subsequent analysis prepared by agency to respond to protest lacks rational basis)

Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., B-414360 (May 19, 2017) (record does not support evaluators' assignment of weaknesses to various aspects of protester’s proposal and reflects disregard of portions proposal and application of unstated evaluation criteria)

Innovation Assocs., Inc., B-414406 (June 6, 2017) (awardee's proposed solution failed to meet two material solicitation requirements)

SITEC Consulting, LLC, et al., B-413526.4, et al. (Apr. 3, 2017) (agency improperly evaluated Past Performance by assigning "confidence" rather than "neutral" rating to several offerors)

Red River Computer Co., B-414183.4,  .6, .7 (June 2, 2017) (unequal price evaluation; agency's price evaluators permitted one awardee to propose on basis forbidden by solicitation and denied to other offerors)

Next Tier Concepts, Inc.; MAXIMUS Federal Services, Inc., B-414337, .2 (May 15, 2017) (flawed price realism evaluation; price evaluators' conclusion (that awardee's prices were so low as to indicate a lack of technical understanding of requirements) was not communicated to technical evaluators or considered in final award decision)

Knight Point Systems, LLC, B-414183.3, .5 (May 31, 2017) (in solicitation for quotations under FSS contract, agency did not reasonably consider whether services offered by protester through its subcontractors were within the scope of protester's GSA schedule contract, but, instead, considered only whether the cloud systems offered by protester were listed by brand name on protester's GSA schedule contract, which was not a requirement of the solicitation)

TOTE Services, Inc., B-414295, .2 (May 25, 2017) (agency failed to adequately document its evaluation of past technical performance, credited offerors for relevant performance without considering its quality, and credited offerors for positive performance without considering its relevance)

AdvanceMed Corp., B-414373 (May 25, 2017) (in cost realism evaluation, agency failed to recognize and reasonably assess two aspects of likely costs stemming from the awardee’s proposed technical approach)

Mevacon NASCO JV; Encanto Facility Services, LLC, B-515329, et al. (May 11, 2017) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with one protester because it failed to alert protester to weaknesses in its technical proposal that agency evaluated as creating high risk of unsuccessful performance; award decision failed to explain why agency selected higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award)

Verdi Consulting, Inc., B-414103.2, .3, .4 (Apr. 26, 2017) (protester is interested party because it showed a "reasonable possibility" of prejudice by successfully challenging Past Performance, Price, and tradeoff evaluations, even where several technical proposals were rated higher; agency waived its right to object at GAO to fact that protester failed to submit revised price proposal because it evaluated protester's final proposal (and that of another offeror) without objection; agency improperly downgraded protester's Past Performance based on unstated evaluation factor, and agency's Past Performance evaluation was insufficiently documented; nothing in record indicates agency evaluated option year pricing, as required by solicitation;  agency's best value tradeoff analysis was inadequately documented and showed the agency failed to take into account option year pricing) 

A-P-T Research, Inc., B-413731.2 (Apr. 3, 2017) (where non-incumbent awardee proposed high retention rate for incumbent employees and agency determined that awardee’s proposed professional compensation was at low end of the experience and compensation scales used for evaluation, contemporaneous record lacked a reasoned basis for finding awardee’s professional compensation or proposed costs to be acceptable or realistic; no indication in contemporaneous record that, during evaluation process, agency (i) had assessed a potential impaired objectivity OCI posed by the awardee’s major subcontractor or (ii) had found the awardee’s proposed mitigation plan to be sufficient)

Walden Security; Akal Security, Inc., B-413523.6, et al. (Mar. 22, 2017) (agency violated terms of solicitation by failing to permit offeror opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which it was not previously allowed to respond)

General Revenue Corp., et al., B-414220.2, et al. (Mar. 27, 2017) (consolidated protest by 15 protesters; agency's evaluation failed to comply with solicitation's evaluation scheme in multiple areas and lacked rational bases; sustains protests only of those protesters who demonstrated prejudice from these errors)

XPO Logistics Worldwide Government Services, LLC, B-412628.6, .7 (Mar. 14, 2017) (where solicitation required an assessment of the magnitude of the offerors’ past efforts relative to the solicited requirement, record fails to show how the awardee’s comparatively low-value past efforts reasonably could have been assessed as somewhat relevant)

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC, B-413464, .2 (Nov. 4, 2016) (nothing in record shows agency conducted a required best-value tradeoff analysis between awardee's  highest-priced, highest technically-rated proposal and protester's lower priced, lower technically-rated proposal)

Tribalco, LLC, B-414120, .2 (Feb. 21, 2017) (agency engaged in disparate treatment of offerors by overlooking same type of flaws in awardee's Integrated Master Schedule for which agency had downgraded protester's proposal)

CSR, Inc., B-413973, .2 (Jan. 13, 2017) (agency engaged in disparate treatment of offerors in past performance evaluation by limiting review of protester's CPARs to projects specifically identified in its proposal, without such a restriction on review of awardee's CPARs; best-value tradeoff analysis offered no explanation for finding awardee's corporate experience superior when the two firms had been rated equally in this area by the evaluators)

Patriot Solutions, LLC, B-413779 (Dec. 22, 2016) (agency improperly converted the best-value tradeoff competition set forth in the solicitation into a lowest-priced, technically acceptable competition)

Xtreme Concepts Inc. B-413711 (Dec. 19, 2016) (agency improperly used neutral past performance rating to lower protester's evaluation and exclude it from the competitive range)

Target Media Mid Atlantic, Inc., B-412468.6 (Dec. 6, 2016) (flawed cost evaluation: agency failed to evaluate the realism of the awardee’s cost proposal in accordance with its proposed technical approach and failed to evaluate the awardee’s professional employee compensation plan in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation)

Vencore Services and Solutions, Inc., B-412949, .2 (July 18, 2016) (agency failed to correct problem after it engaged in misleading discussions with protester based on faulty, inflated agency cost estimate)

EFW Inc., B-412608, .2 (Apr. 7, 2016) (misleading discussion did not alert protester to agency's true concerns; faulty past performance evaluation obscured differences between proposals; assignment of significant weakness in price realism based upon considerations not properly within scope of price realism analysis)

GiaCare and MedTrust JV, LLC, B-407966.4 (Nov. 2, 2016) (price realism evaluation of awardee failed to consider discrepancies between its price proposal and technical approach; agency used labor rates in price realism analysis that did not match those actually proposed by offerors; no basis to support agency's conclusion that awardee's proposed indirect rate was not unrealistically low; agency did not properly consider awardee's unrealistically low direct and indirect proposed rates in evaluating risk of its technical approach)

Jacobs Technology, Inc., B-413389, .2 (Oct. 16, 2016) (agency's evaluation failed to reasonably consider an aspect of the awardee’s technical submission that indicated a lack of technical understanding)

Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, B-412990.2 (Oct. 17, 2016) (no basis in record to explain agency's decision to assign "Good" mission capability rating to awardee despite evaluators' conclusion that one of its staffing methodologies should be rejected)

CALNET, Inc., B-413386.2, .3 (Oct. 28, 2016) (no basis for agency's conclusions that offerors' proposed costs were realistic or that four proposals were equivalent under non-cost evaluation factors)

NCI Information Systems, Inc., B-412870.2 (Oct. 14, 2016) (nothing in the record to document that the agency meaningfully considered awardee's potential impaired objectivity OCI or its proposed mitigation measures prior to award; record is insufficient to support agency's conclusions that the awardee's proposed price: (i) was commensurate with the proposed technical approach and reflected realistic labor category pricing; and (ii) was not clearly unrealistic)

Phoenix Air Group, Inc., B-412796.2, .3 (Sep. 26, 2016) (agency's decision that awardee met offer acceptability criteria was unreasonable because offeror provided inconsistent information concerning identify of proposed aircraft; agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in downgrading protester's proposal)

Halbert Construction Co., B-413213 (Sep. 8, 2016) (agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was unreasonable because agency engaged in disparate treatment of protester's and competitor's proposals; agency's tradeoff analysis was unreasonable because it was based upon a non-existent distinction in the definitions of the assigned adjectival ratings)

Engility Corp., B-413202, .2 (Sep. 2, 2016) (in determining firm was nonresponsible because it did not have required facility security clearance, agency relied on incomplete information and speculation, ignored evidence suggesting  agency's conclusion was incorrect and failed to contact firm to resolve issue)

CACI, Inc.-Federal; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-413028, .2, .3 (Aug. 3, 2016) (solicitation for cost-reimbursable task orders does not require offerors to propose labor rates for individual tasks and, therefore, does not include means for Government to compare probable costs of competing proposals; agency failed to adequately justify its rationale for excluding from the competition any proposals with a total proposed price that is 50 percent below the trimmed average total proposed price)

AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., B-413012, .2 (July 28, 2016) (record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated a potential unequal access to information conflict arising from the relationship between the awardee and one of its proposed subcontractors; past performance evaluation contained errors in the assignment of adjectival ratings, which were subsequently relied upon by source selection authority in the award decision)

Professional Service Industries, Inc., B-412721.2, .3, .4 (July 21, 2016) (awardee's proposed Program Manager failed to meet solicitation requirement for management experience)

MicroTechnologies, LLC, B-413091, .2  (Aug. 11, 2016) (agency's evaluation of the awardee’s proposed professional employee compensation plan  was not adequately documented; data relied upon by the agency did not provide a meaningful basis to evaluate the awardee’s proposed compensation; and agency acknowledges it mistakenly relied upon incorrect data from salary survey)

Alutiiq Banner Joint Venture, B-412952, .2, .3, .4 (July 15, 2016) (agency improperly credited member of awardee's joint venture for past performance of which there was no record; awardee was ineligible for award of 8(a) set-aside because it had not submitted addendum to 8(a) joint venture agreement to SBA for approval as required by SBA regulations causing the SBA to rescind approval of the joint venture)

Arcadis U.S., Inc., B-412828 (June 16, 2016) (no rational basis to downgrade otherwise meritorious technical proposal for fixed-price task order on the basis of allegedly higher costs of proposed approach; agency's evaluators provided no rational explanation for disregarding lack of project experience of awardee; source selection decision based on these and other defects lacked rational basis)

Valor Healthcare, Inc., B-412960, .2 (July 15, 2016) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement that it compare awardee's proposed pricing to its technical approach for purposes of price realism analysis)

Veterans Evaluation Services, Inc., et al., B-412940, et al. (July 13, 2016) (agency's "Good" Past Performance rating of awardee was unreasonable because it was based on performance of mentor firm that awardee did not plan to utilize for current contract work; agency's price evaluation methodology did not provide reasonably accurate information concerning the relative total price of competing proposals; agency engaged in misleading discussions by failing to inform offerors that, after initially finding their prices reasonable, agency had changed its mind and determined them to be unreasonably high)

ASRC Communications, Ltd., B-412093.4 (July 1, 2016) (agency failed to reevaluate portions of the awardee's proposal in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

Patricio Enterprises, Inc., B-412738, .2 (May 26, 2016) (material misrepresentations in awardee's proposal concerning availability of personnel tainted evaluation)

Patricio Enterprises Inc., B-412740, .3, .4 (May 26, 2016) (agency's evaluation of past performance was unreasonable because it actually downgraded protester for submitting three more past performance references than the awardee did, especially when the additional references were relevant and were judged either exceptional or very good in quality)

DKW Communications, Inc., B-412652.3, .6  (May 2, 2016) (awardee violated proposal preparation instructions requiring single-spacing by using compressed line spacing, which allowed it to squeeze more information into technical proposal that had a 10-page limit. 

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, B-412125.2, .3 (Apr. 15, 2016) (agency improperly concluded that one of awardee's proposed key personnel met the experience requirements of the solicitation; contemporaneous record insufficient for GAO to assess adequacy of agency's evaluation of relevant past performance; agency engaged in unequal discussions regarding past performance)

Paragon Technology Group, Inc., B-412636, .2 (Apr. 22, 2016) (agency conducted misleading discussions by directing the protester to remove certain assumptions from its proposal, when those assumptions were not the agency's actual concern with the proposal; agency’s decision to assess the relevance of past performance using a value 200 percent larger than the value of the solicited effort was unreasonable and inconsistent with the requirements of the solicitation) 

Crowley Logistics, Inc., B-412628.2, .3, .4 (Apr. 19, 2016) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester because agency did not alert protester to what agency evaluated as a significant performance risk) 

M7 Aerospace LLC, B-411986, .2 (Dec. 1, 2015) (no evidence in contemporaneous record that agency complied with solicitation evaluation scheme which contemplated a qualitative comparison of various approaches proposed by offerors)

Innovative Test Asset Solutions, LLC, B-411687, .2 (Oct. 2, 2015) (agency improperly "inverted" the evaluation scheme and used cost risks identified only in the cost realism anaysis to assign technical risk in two areas of the technical evaluation where the evaluators had not identified any technical weaknesses)

Sterling Medical Corp., B-412407. .2 (Feb. 3, 2016) (agency improperly credited awardee for features unrelated to evaluation criteria and neglected to downgrade it for instances where it failed to provide required information)

Arctic Slope Mission Services, LLC, B-410992.5, .6 (Jan. 8, 2016) (agency gave undue emphasis to one of the evaluation subfactors, and treated offerors unequally by reading some offerors’ proposals expansively and giving offerors the benefit of the doubt, while applying a much stricter standard when evaluating other proposals; agency failed to evaluate relevance of past performance adequately)

SRA International, Inc. B-410973, .2 (Apr. 8, 2015) (agency conducted discussions only with awardee and allowed only awardee to revise proposal)

RELI Group, Inc., B-412380  (Jan. 28, 2016) (latent ambiguity in solicitation's instructions concerning submission of prime and subcontract references for evaluation of relevant experience, which was not discovered until proposals were evaluated, requires agency to issue clarification and then permit offerors opportunity to submit revised proposals)

Intelsat General Corp., B-412097, .2 (Dec. 23, 2015) (agency engaged in misleading discussions by failing to inform protester of change in agency's interpretation of solicitation requirements after agency held discussions; agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal  neither reasonable nor consistent with terms of solicitation regarding requirements for satellite coverage and capacity and required documentation; agency’s price realism analysis flawed because awardee’s proposal did not meet solicitation’s technical requirements for required documentation and complete regional satellite coverage)

Cascadian American Enterprises, B-312208.3, .4 (Feb. 5, 2016) (agency downgraded protester's proposal in the Key Personnel area without giving it the same opportunity as the awardee had  to address weaknesses in proposal through discussions; agency rated the small business protester's proposal unacceptable in the Experience area, which is a responsibility-type factor, without referring it to SBA for CoC)

Castro & Co., LLC, B-412398 (Jan. 29, 2016) (evaluation of protester's proposal under Technical and Past Performance factors not supported in record; source selection decision lacked rational basis where Contracting Officer selected awardee’s quotation on the basis of its higher numerical score, without documenting any consideration of the basis for the score, the merits of competing quotations, or whether any advantages of the awardee’s quotation outweighed its higher price)

ASRC Communications, Ltd., B-412093, .2 (Dec. 23, 2015) (no basis in record to support agency's decision that awardee's revised proposal had cured material defect in its original proposal that would have precluded award)

AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-411481.3 (Jan. 6, 2016) (labor category proposed by awardee for task order award under FSS contract did not meet requirements of solicitation)

Export 220Volt, Inc., B-412303.2 (Jan. 20, 2016) (awardee failed to comply with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criterion that required offerors to provide product literature to substantiate the acceptability of their proposed products)

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, et al., B-411884, .2-.6 (Nov. 16, 2015) (record did not show why agency credited awardee with its parent company's experience under Corporate Experience factor;  awardee took exception to solicitation's data rights requirements; agency's evaluators made unsupported assumptions concerning awardee's proposed labor mix; agency evaluated quotations from various competitors unequally where record does not show basis for distinguishing among them)

CORTEK, Inc., B-412047, .2, .3  (Dec. 17, 2015) (agency improperly (i) accepted proposal that included references to employees who did not meet solicitation's experience requirements, (ii) allowed awardee to exceed page limitation in solicitation by one page, and (iii) used information on additional page, which should have been ignored, to reach favorable evaluation of awardee's past performance; record produced by agency so heavily redacted that GAO could not evaluate its response to other protest allegations)

West Coast General Corp., B-411916.2 (Dec. 14, 2015) (agency failed to enforce solicitation requirement that offered G&A rates be supported by (and evaluated on basis of) certified financial statements or DCAA audit report; award determination based entirely on mechanical comparison of total technical scores and G&A rates)

Smartronix, Inc.; ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., B-411970, .2, .3, .4 (Nov. 25, 2015) (agency’s cost realism evaluation failed to reasonably assess whether vendors’ proposed direct labor rates were realistic and consistent with the vendors’ various proposed approaches)   

Protect the Force, Inc., B-411897.2, .4 (Nov. 24, 2015) (awardees' proposals did not meet solicitation requirement that they  demonstrate how they met particular solicitation requirement and agency's finding that these proposals were technically acceptable lacked a rational basis)

DRS Technical Services, Inc., B-411573.2, .3 (Nov. 9, 2015) (agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposed level of effort was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation; agency’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigation was not reasonable as it failed to meaningfully consider whether the awardee’s performance of a portion of the work required under the anticipated task order would result in an impaired objectivity OCI)

Celta Services, Inc., B-411835, .2 (Nov. 2, 2015) (SSA improperly considered weaknesses in protester's proposal that had been resolved during discussions; point scores were not applied consistently among offerors; record not sufficient to conclude that evaluation of awardee's Past Performance was reasonable)

Logistics Management International, Inc., et al., B-411015.4, .5, .6 (Nov. 20, 2015) (agency's reevaluation of awardee's past performance in response to prior successful GAO protests still was objectionable in that it gave credit to a number of orders that did not meet the solicitation's definition for treating orders as a series and a single reference; agency's reevaluation also involved disparate treatment of offerors because it denied one protester same opportunity to submit additional information afforded to another offeror)

W.P. Tax & Accounting Group, B-411899  (Nov. 13, 2015) (agency improperly rejected proposal for unrealistically low price when solicitation did not alert bidders that price realism would be evaluated)

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., B-411771, .1 (Oct. 20, 2015) (agency incorrectly interpreted spreadsheet submitted by protester as proposing uncompensated overtime and, therefore, improperly made upward adjustment to protester's estimated costs as part of cost realism analysis)

Coastal International Security, Inc., B-411756, .2 (Oct. 19, 2015) (collective bargaining agreement incorporated in solicitation included latent ambiguity for rates in two labor categories, which offerors interpreted differently, which, in turn, affected agency's price realism and best value trade-off evaluations)

Trandes Corp, 411712, .2, .3 (Oct. 13, 2015) (several of awardee's proposed key personnel failed to meet material experience requirements of solicitation)

Tantus Technologies, Inc. B-411608, .3 (Sep. 14, 2015) (agency failed to consider whether, under the personnel and management factor, awardee’s proposal to relocate a significant number of employees to cheaper labor market after the first year of the task order posed a risk to awardee’s ability to retain qualified staff; agency did not evaluate corporate experience and or the relevance of past performance in a manner consistent with the RFP;  awardee's proposal to hire incumbent staff at substantially lower rates than they were currently being paid resulted in unrealistically low labor rates that agency should have adjusted upward in conducting its cost realism evaluation)

FCi Federal, Inc., B-408558.7, .8 (Aug. 5, 2015) (in undertaking corrective action nine months after original award, agency failed to consider whether, since awardee had been sold to another company, awardee’s proposal still reflected the manner in which the contract would be performed and the resources, experience, and past performance to be relied upon in the performance of the contract)

Starry Assocs., B-410968.2 (Aug. 11, 2015) (agency did not properly evaluate whether personnel proposed by awardee were available and qualified to perform required work)

Lilly Timber Services, B-411435.2 (Aug. 5, 2015) (solicitation did not alert offerors that agency intended to evaluate price realism)

Metis Solutions, LLC, et al., B-411173.2, et al. (July 20, 2015) (agency downgraded proposal for failure to provide item not required by solicitation; agency assigned weaknesses to two offerors, but not to the awardee, for the same proposal content; unexplained discrepancies between technical evaluation report and source selection evaluation report; lack of consistency in agency's evaluation of relevancy of past performance of awardee versus other offerors; lack of basis in record for performance confidence ratings; source selection decision failed to perform price versus technical tradeoff analysis and failed to evaluate proposals individually)  

Cubic Applications, Inc., B-411305, .2 (July 19, 2015) (agency engaged in unequal evaluations when it rated protester's optional labor rates as exceptionally low and risky while not evaluating the awardee's even lower optional labor rates in that manner)

B&B Medical Services, Inc.; Ed Medical, Inc., B-409705.4, .5 (June 29, 2015) (agency failed to conduct price realism analysis contemplated by solicitation even though awardee's price was much lower than that of other offerors and the Government's estimate)

International Waste Industries, B-411338 (July 7, 2015) (agency conducted discussions with awardee, allowing it to correct unacceptable aspects in its quotation, while failing to conduct discussions with protester)

DKW Communications, Inc., B-411182, .2 (June 9, 2015) (agency failed: (i) to consider cost to Government as part of cost/technical trade-off analysis: (ii) to document other aspects of proposal evaluation; and (iii) to consider protester's relevant, positive past experience)

Caddell Construction Co., B-411005.1, .2 (Apr. 20, 2015) (agency's determination that competitors met requirements of Security Act concerning adequate financial resources and total business volume was unreasonable and not supported by the record), decision essentially overturned by Court of Federal Claims

Alcazar Trades, Inc., B-410001.4 (Apr. 1, 2015) (agency performed price realism analysis required by solicitation without taking protester's unique staffing approach)

Hanel Storage Systems, L.P., B-409030.2 (Sep. 15, 2014) (agency could not issue purchase order to vendor whose quotation did not comply with material requirement of RFQ)

eAlliant, LLC, B-407332.6, .10 (Jan. 14, 2015) (no basis in record for changing former awardee's evaluation scores upon reevaluation) 

CFS-KBR Marianas Support Services, LLC; Fluor Federal Solutions LLC, B-410486, .2, .3 (Jan. 2, 2015) (agency mechanically used only government estimate to evaluate cost realism of each offeror's proposed staffing in initial proposals, without regard to varying proposed technical approaches, and then used that flawed analysis to conduct misleading discussions regarding sufficiency of proposed staffing)

Glen Mar Construction, Inc., B-410603 (Jan. 14, 2015) (agency’s price evaluation improperly included price of options agency knew with reasonable certainty it would not have sufficient funds to purchase)

CGI Federal, Inc., B-410330.2 (Dec. 10, 2014) (price evaluation scheme did not match agency's changed ordering strategy)

Quality Services International, LLC, B-410156, .2, .3 (Nov. 3, 2014) (agency did not evaluate awardee's experience in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

Premiums & Specialties, Inc., B-410247 (Nov. 13, 2014) (unreasonable to reject low quotation for failure to return call asking for confirmation of quotation within an hour when solicitation did not advise bidders that such responses would be required)

Computer Sciences Corp., et al., B-408694.7-.11 (Nov. 3, 2014) (flawed cost realism, past performance, technical, and tradeoff evaluations)

Swets Information Services, B-410078 (Oct. 20, 2014) (insufficient documentation in record to determine whether agency's evaluations of vendors' product demonstrations were reasonable)

FCi Federal, Inc., B-408558.4, .5, .6 (Oct. 20, 2014) (affirmative responsibility determination failed to consider allegations of fraud against awardee's parent with which it was closely connected)

Federal Builders, LLC-The James R. Belk Trust, B-409952, .2 (Sep. 26, 2014) (agency accepted proposal that did not include a clear commitment to pay the wage rates required by the solicitation for reconstruction of the existing building it offered) 

Electrosoft Services, Inc., B-409065, .2, .3 (Jan. 27, 2014) (flawed evaluations of (i) experience of awardee's proposed program manager; (ii) protester's past performance; and (iii) relative technical merits of protester's and awardee's approaches)

CPS Professional Services, LLC, B-409811, .2 (Aug. 13, 2014) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to assess relative relevancy and quality of offerors' past performance submissions)

Paradigm Technologies, Inc., B-409221.2, .3  (Aug. 1, 2014) (awardee's proposal failed to satisfy material solicitation requirement concerning key personnel)

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, B-409537, .2 (June 4, 2014) (no rational basis for source selection authority's conclusion that awardee's Past Performance distinguished its proposal from protester's, especially enough to offset protester's technical superiority)

Intelligent Decisions, Inc., et al., B-409686, .2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14 (July 15, 2014) (performance confidence evaluation failed to consider all elements required to be evaluated by solicitation, and agency failed to meaningfully consider price in its final source selection decision)

Native Resource Development Co., B-409617.3 (July 21, 2014) (agency acted unreasonably in finding protester's proposed staffing level  to be weakness without providing protester with reasonable notice of, and the opportunity to address, agency’s internal staffing estimate and its own overall number and without providing analysis as to specific areas in which protester’s final staffing numbers were considered insufficient; protester's contention that its Past Performance should have received the "Outstanding" rating sustained because agency did not attempt to rebut it)

Iron Vine Security, LLC, B-409015 (Jan. 22, 2014) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to conduct price realism analysis of proposed labor rates)

Risk Analysis and Mitigation Partners, B-409687, .2 (July 15, 2014) (agency's use of unstated evaluation criteria to assign weaknesses to protester's proposal)

Raytheon Co., B-409691, .2 (July 9, 2014) (no rational basis for certain discriminators found by SSA between protester's and awardee's proposals and improper credit to awardee for experience of affiliate not shown to contribute to proposed contract work)

Alutiiq Pacific, LLC, B-409584, .2 (June 19, 2014) (agency improperly credited awardee with experience of affiliated firms even though its proposal did not explain how they would contribute significantly to the work; agency improperly credited awardee with proposing to retain large proportion of incumbent staff even though its proposal showed it intended to pay them significantly less than incumbent had; agency treated awardee and protester disparately in evaluation)

Marathon Medical Corp., B-408052 (June 4, 2014) (agency permitted awardee, but not protester, to submit information establishing acceptability of its proposal)

Gaver Technologies, Inc., B-509535 (June 3, 2014) (no basis for source selection authority's failure to credit protester's proposal with innovative approaches found by evaluators to be significant strengths; awardee was credited with a 30-day phase-in plan when it only proposed a 60-day phase in (as did the protester))

WAI-Stoller Services, LCC; Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., B-408248.6 et al (May 22, 2014) (several discriminators used to distinguish between two similarly rated proposals do not withstand scrutiny, and were the result of unreasonable conclusions, unequal evaluations, or inaccurate judgments regarding the differences between the two proposals)

System Studies & Simulation, Inc., B-409375.2, .3 (May 12, 2014) (agency's actual needs and awarded contract were for less than 30% of amount solicited)

Prism Maritime, LLC, B-409276.2, .3 (Apr. 7, 2014) (no basis for SSA's evaluation that disagreed with all negative findings of evaluators; flawed cost realism evaluation and improper use of proposed rather than evaluated prices in source selection decision)

McGoldrick Construction Services Corp., B-409252.2 (Mar. 28, 2014) (agency improperly downgraded proposal based on unstated evaluation criterion concerning quality control staffing requirements)

Solers Inc., B-409079, .2 (Jan. 27, 2014) (record is inadequate to establish rational basis for agency's evaluation of awardee's proposed labor mix for cost-reimbursable and fixed-price CLINs or realism of proposed level of effort for fixed-price CLINs; agency's evaluation conclusions made only after protest filed were not adequate response to protester's contention that agency's original evaluation failed to credit its technical proposal for items that exceeded solicitation requirements)

Motorola Solutions, Inc., B-409148, .2 (Jan. 28, 2014)(awardee's proposal did not include required evidence that it could actually obtain the equipment it proposed to use and that was material to the acceptance of its proposal)

Kardex Remstar, LLC, B-409030 (Jan. 17, 2014) (agency failed to identify deficiency during discussions that rendered quotation unacceptable)

Piquette & Howard Electric Service, Inc., B-408435.3 (Dec. 16, 2013) (after initial evaluation, agency conducted discussions with eventual awardee and then allowed only that firm to revise its technical proposal)

Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-408112.2 (Dec. 27, 2013) (agency's evaluation did not take into account effects of awardee's disclosed plans to split into two companies, one of which would actually perform the contract)

BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc., B-408565, .2, .3 (Nov. 13, 2013) (agency did not evaluate technical risk in accordance with solicitation requirements; agency did not adequately document its rationale for eliminating multiple technical risks and weaknesses from its evaluation of awardee's technical proposal; agency improperly credited awardee with outdated corporate experience)

SRA International, Inc., B-408624, .2 (Nov. 25, 2013) (agency's conclusion that protester failed to provide required information regarding small business subcontracting lacked rational basis; by assigning a significant weakness to protester while failing to do so for other offerors with deficiencies of similar import, agency did not evaluate offers on equal basis)

Logistics 2020, Inc., B-408543, .3 (Nov. 6, 2013) (agency failed to perform price realism analysis and failed to conduct qualitative evaluation of proposed personnel, both of which violated solicitation's evaluation scheme)

AXIS Management Group LLC, B-408575 (Nov. 13, 2013) (flawed price proposal evaluation ignored innovative technical approach)

Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., B-407093 (Nov. 6, 2013) (record is devoid of evidence that evaluators conducted qualitative evaluation and comparison of proposals, which was required by solicitation)

Savvee Consulting, Inc., B-408416, .2 (Sep. 18, 2013) (use of unstated evaluation criterion; flawed evaluation under Corporate Experience and Personnel factors)

Coburn Contractors, LLC, B-408279.2 (Sep. 30, 2013) (agency used unstated evaluation factor in faulting offeror for failing to provide list of subcontractors with its proposal, when solicitation did not require such a submission or state that it would be evaluated)

Triad International Maintenance Corp., B-408374 (Sep. 5, 2013) (evaluation of protester's past performance failed to reasonably consider its work as incumbent; agency improperly determined protester's proposed price was moderate risk where solicitation did not provide for price realism evaluation)

Sayres & Assocs. Corp., B-408252, .2 (Aug. 1, 2013) (Navy misevaluated proposal by concluding that two tables presented in proposal were contradictory)

Sentrillion Corp., B-406843.3, .4, .5 (Apr. 22, 2013) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester because it failed to alert it during discussions to a deficiency in its proposal that became one basis for the agency's subsequent finding that the proposal was unacceptable)

West Sound Services Group, LLC, B-406583.2, .3 (July 3, 2013) (agency failed conduct meaningful discussions and no record that agency adequately considered non-price proposal)

IAP World Services, Inc., EMCOR Government Services, B-407917.2, et al. (July 10, 2013) (agency credited joint venture with corporate experience and past performance of affiliates of one joint venture partner when record did not show that affiliates would contribute to contract performance; agency did not treat offerors on fair and equal basis because it failed to credit protester for offering same feature that was evaluated as a strength in awardee's proposal; source selection official failed to recognize and consider features in protesters' proposal that resulted in their higher evaluation rankings)

IBM-U.S. Federal, B-407073.3, .4, .5, .6 (June 6, 2013) (agency failed to conduct price evaluation of protester and awardee on equal basis and relaxed material solicitation requirement only for awardee during post-selection negotiations)

NOVA Corp., B-408046, .2 (June 4, 2013) (record inadequate to explain whether source selection official considered the significant evaluated differences between awardee and the protester's past performance records)

Exelis Systems Corp., B-407111.5, .6, .7 (May 20, 2013) (agency's excellent rating of awardee's proposed staffing for contract years after base year lacks rational basis where awardee significantly reduced proposed staff in out years without explanation)

Global Dynamics, LLC, B-407966 (May 6, 2013) (record did support weaknesses found by evaluators in protester's proposal)

Nuclear Production Partners LLC, et al., B-407948, et al. (Apr. 29, 2013) (agency failed to follow solicitation requirement to evaluate feasibility of offerors' proposed cost savings, but assumed all proposed savings were feasible)

Esegur-Empresa de Seguranca, SA, B-407847, .2 (Apr. 27, 2013) (solicitation that stated proposals "may" be rejected as unrealistically low required agency to perform price realism analysis)

Grunley Construction Co., B-407900 (Apr. 3, 2013) (agency did not explain how it concluded protester's schedule did not include float, when it clearly did)

IBM Corp., U.S. Federal, B-406934.2, .3, .4 (Oct. 3, 2012) (record does not support (i) agency's evaluation of protester's proposal in several respects and (ii) discriminators agency allegedly found between protester's and awardee's proposals)

Bahrain Telecommunications, Co. B.S.C., B-407682.2, .3 (January 28, 2013) (agency's evaluation lacked rational basis where quotation did not commit to comply with material solicitation requirements) 

BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc., B-405664, .2 (December 2011) (agency credited successful offeror with proposed approach that offeror did not firmly commit to complete to agency's satisfaction; agency improperly failed to credit protester with relevant experience of proposed personnel)

Nexant, Inc., B-407708, .2 (Jan. 30,2013) (lack of meaningful discussions by failing to specifically alert protester to two weaknesses that ultimately contributed to its failure to win award; agency's numerical scoring methodology was not reasonable and contained numerous errors; cost/technical tradeoff decision did not adequately explain reason for selecting higher-cost proposal)

Mission Essential Personnel. LLC, B-407474, 407493 (Jan. 7, 2013) (during discussions agency failed to alert protester to two weaknesses in its proposal that eventually led to its rejection; agency's evaluation of "fill rates" was not in accordance with evaluation scheme)

J. Squared Inc., dba University Loft Co., B-407302 (Dec. 17, 2012) (nonconforming quotation failed to comply with material solicitation requirement and, therefore, could not form basis for award)

Veterans Healthcare Supply Solutions, Inc., B-407223.2 (December 13, 2012) (record did not support agency's conclusion that offeror's proposed product was not "equal" to the specified brand name)

Exelis Systems Corp., B-407111, et al., (Nov. 13, 2012) (agency's technical evaluation was not in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme and treated offerors unequally)

Science Applications International Corp., B-407105, .2 (Nov. 1, 2012) (agency did not consider awardee's particular technical approach in evaluating its technical proposal or in price realism assessment)

Emergint Technologies, Inc., B-407006 (Oct. 18, 2012) (technical evaluation was flawed because (i) there was no basis in the record for deficiencies agency found in protester's proposal and (ii) agency downgraded proposal for lack of price realism when solicitation's evaluation scheme did not provide for such analysis)

Kollsman, Inc., B-406990, .2 (Oct. 15, 2012) (lack of documentation in record to support awardee's substantial confidence rating in past performance) 

Basic Overnight Quarters, LLC, B-406964, .2 (Oct. 12, 2012) (multiple errors in evaluation of protester's proposal and unequal treatment of protester and awardee in evaluation)

Supreme Foodservice GmbH, B-405400.3, .4, .5 (Oct. 11, 2012) (agency's experience/past performance evaluation flawed where awardee's proposal given highest possible rating despite fact that none of its past contracts met dollar size requirements; record insufficient to establish whether agency's use of internally-obtained past performance evaluation in place of unfavorable information in awardee's proposal was reasonable; inconsistent evaluations of protester's and awardee's proposals under past performance factor)

IBM Corp., U.S. Federal, B-406934.2, .3, .4 (Oct. 3, 2012) (record does not support (i) agency's evaluation of protester's proposal in several respects and (ii) discriminators agency allegedly found between protester's and awardee's proposals)

Lifecycle Construction Services, LLC, B-406907 (Sep. 27, 2012) (agency's rejection of protester's proposal as unreasonably low was unreasonable where determination was based on fact that it was 15% below the median of all other proposed prices, which included proposals that were unacceptable, unreasonably high, or ineligible for award)

Orion Technology, Inc.; Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC, B-406769, .2, .5 (Aug. 22, 2012) (agency mechanically and unequally 
applied undisclosed staffing estimates in evaluating the offerors’ proposed staffing to determine acceptability of proposals)

Glotech, Inc., B-406761, .2 (Aug. 21, 2012) (agency failed to consider price in quotations for BPAs under FSS program)

Triumvirate Environmental, Inc., B-406809 (Sep. 5, 2012) (agency's conclusion that protester's pricing was unbalanced (too low in some cases) and post hoc rationalization that protester had used more employees than needed on prior contract were not sufficient to justify conclusion that there was a risk of higher prices to the Government; tradeoff analysis failed to adequately consider protester's price advantage) 

J.R. Conkey & Assocs. dba Solar Power Integrators, B-406024.4 (Aug. 22, 2012) (agency improperly downgraded proposal as lacking information that was, in fact, included; agency's evaluation of protester under Schedule factor was inconsistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme; agency impermissibly limited tradeoff analysis to proposals with highest technical scores, regardless of price)

NikiSoft Systems Corp., B-406179.2 (Aug. 14, 2012) (in reevaluation after earlier successful protest, there was no basis in the record to justify the agency's decision that the level of effort proposed by the protester was inadequate and should be adjusted upward)

Philips Healthcare Informatics, B-405382.2 (May 14, 2012) (awardee's final proposal revision was late; past performance evaluation was unreasonable, inconsistent with the RFP, and insufficiently documented; agency waived material solicitation requirement only for awardee)

Cyberdata Technologies, Inc., B-406692 (Aug. 8, 2012) (agency ignored FAR 8.4 requirement that price be considered in FSS solicitation for blanket purchase agreement)

The Clay Group, LLC, B-406647, .2 (July 30, 2012) (agency failed to comply with relative importance of evaluation factors stated in solicitation; agency failed to evaluate in accordance with solicitation's evaluation factors; no evidence in record that agency evaluated awardee's product sample for compliance with salient requirements stated in solicitation)

Rocamar Engineering Services, Inc., B-406514 (June 20, 2012) (agency improperly conducted second fire/burn test on protester's system after it had begun to dismantle the system)

KPMG LLP, B-406409 et al. (May 21, 2012) (agency misled protester during discussions into believing resumes were required for all proposed personnel for life of procurement; faulty cost realism analysis--no basis in record for agency's conclusion concerning cost realism of awardee's proposal, especially where its proposed cost savings depended on replacing staff whose resumes were relied on for its higher technical rating)

Tipton Textile Rental, Inc., B-406372 (May 9, 2012) (awardee's quotation failed to comply with material solicitation requirement; evaluators failed to consider protester's responses to queries during discussions; agency improperly ignored awardee's checking of "is not" small business box in small business set-aside)

Sea Box, Inc., B-405711.2 (Mar. 19, 2012) (failure of quotation to include 90-day acceptance period stated in solicitation did not render it unacceptable because quotations are not offers; awardee's failure to comply with RFQ's requirements to submit technical information  concerning its quotation meant record did not support agency's decision quotation was acceptable)

NikiSoft Systems Corp., B-406179 (Feb. 29, 2012) (agency did not meaningfully consider protester's lower price in awarding to higher technically rated proposal; agency failed to provide meaningful explanation for past performance evaluation)

The Emergence Group, B-404844.7 (Feb. 29, 2012) (successful protest against past performance evaluation in corrective action undertaken as a result of first successful protest

ERIE Strayer Co., B-406131 (Feb. 21, 2012) (unequal discussions; lack of meaningful discussions)

MANCON, B-405663 (Feb. 9, 2012) (acceptability of offeror's small business subcontracting plan should have been responsibility issue, not pass/fail reason for evaluating proposal as technically unacceptable)

Digital Technologies, Inc., B-406805, .2 (Feb. 6, 2011) (flawed cost realism analysis)

Y&K Maintenance, Inc., B-405310.6 (Feb. 2, 2012) (evaluation of protester's key personnel under experience subfactor was inconsistent with solicitation's stated evaluation criteria)

TriCenturion, Inc.; SafeGuard Services, LLC, B-406032, et al. (Jan. 25, 2012) (cost realism, technical, and past performance evaluations all were insufficiently documented in the record)

Standard Communications, Inc., B-406021 (Jan. 24, 2012) (lack of meaningful discussions; only awardee allowed to make material changes in its proposal that rendered originally technically unacceptable quote acceptable)

SeKON Enterprise, Inc., Signature Consulting Group, B-405921, .2 (Jan. 17, 2012) (lack of meaningful discussions: without proper analysis of proposal, agency improperly directed protester to increase its staffing (and thus its costs))

ITT Systems Corp., B-405865, .2 (Jan. 6, 2012) (no explanation in record for apparent discrepancies (and lack of logical connection) between cost and technical evaluations)

APEX-MBM, JV, B-405107.3 (Oct. 3, 2011) (agency used unstated evaluation criterion to evaluate item the solicitation did not require to be submitted with the proposals but instead suggested would be handled after award)  

The Ross Group Construction Corp., B-405180.2 (Nov. 28, 2011) (past performance evaluation lacked rational basis because awardee received superior rating despite failing to comply with solicitation's stated requirements)

North Wind, Inc;  Earth Resources Technology, Inc., B-404880.4, .5, .6 (Nov. 4, 2011) (agency improperly evaluated awardee's proposal by, in effect, waiving the page limit by allowing it to submit significant portions of its proposal in appendices without informing other offerors, who strictly complied with the page limit, that the approach taken by the awardee to provide additional information was acceptable)

Raytheon Technical Services Co., B-404655.4, .5, .6 (Oct. 11, 2011) (agency relaxed evaluation requirement for awardee by ignoring material failure to propose loaded labor rates for 20 labor categories; agency failed to provide common cut-off date for receipt of proposals; agency treated offerors unequally by giving awardee credit under management factor for similar item to that proposed by protester)

EBA Ernest Bland Assocs., P.C., B-404825.5, .6 (Oct. 11, 2011) (evaluation made without consideration of solicitation's evaluation terms)

The Emergence Group, B-404844.5, .6 (Sep. 26, 2011) (agency did not meaningfully evaluate relevance of prior contracts in past performance evaluation; agency did not evaluate protester's proposal consistently with evaluation of other offeror's proposals)

PCCP Constructors, JV; Bechtel Infrastructure Corp., B-405036, et al. (Aug. 4, 2011) (agency evaluated technical proposal for foundation design in a manner inconsistent with solicitation requirements; agency led offerors to believe they had to bid full budget amount and then credited awardee for proposing less than that; agency's investigation of OCI was inadequate because it did not consider former official's access to source selection information about procurement through prior access to documents and continuing contacts with source selection officials) 

Raytheon Co., B-404998 (July 25, 2011) (lack of meaningful discussions; improper evaluation of references under experience evaluation factor)

SafeGuard Services, LLC, B-404910 (June 28, 2011) (agency improperly rejected proposal after offeror submitted revised business proposal (containing some subcontractor spreadsheets) late; agency should have considered whether the proposal was complete even without the spreadsheets)

One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; King Farm Associates, LLC, B-404896 et al. (June 20, 2011) (evaluation not in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme and failure of source selection authority to meaningfully consider evaluated differences among proposals)

Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, B-404218.2, .3 (June 14, 2011) (agency failed to evaluate resumes in accordance with solicitation's evaluation scheme)

MPRI, Division of L-3 Industries, Inc., B-402548 et al. (2011) (amount of agency's upward adjustment to protester's labor rates in cost realism evaluation was unreasonable)

Diebold, Inc. B-404823 (June 2, 2011) (agency materially modified solicitation's requirements only for awardee)

Solers, Inc., B-404032.3, .4 (Apr. 6, 2011) (awardee took exception to solicitation requirement to propose fixed price; flawed past performance and technical evaluations)

Medical Development International, Inc., B-402198.2 (Mar. 28, 2010) (unreasonable price evaluation; agency improperly ignored fact that awardee's proposal required agency to take certain action by specified date, which agency did not do; note decision is very belatedly published)

Technology Concepts & Design, Inc. B-403949.2, .3 (Mar. 25, 2011) (evaluation lacks a rational basis and was on a different basis than required by the solicitation)

A1 Procurement, JVG, B-404618 (Mar. 14,  2011) (no documentation in the record supporting agency's rationale for rejecting protester's fixed-price proposal as being "too low")

I.M. Systems Group, B-404583 et al. (Feb. 25, 2011) (agency did not perform required cost realism evaluation of either awardee's or protester's proposal)  

IBM Global Business Services, B-404498, .2 (Feb. 23, 2011) (agency rewarded awardee's proposal on basis of unstated evaluation criterion; agency evaluated on basis of much different quantities than those suggested in the solicitation)

Resource Dimensions, LLC, B-404536 (Feb. 24, 2011) (lack of adequate supporting rationale on the record demonstrating rational basis for agency's evaluation of protester's oral presentation)

U. S. Information Technologies Corp., B-404357, .2 (Feb. 2, 2011) (FSS best value procurement; no explanation in record why awardee's past projects were considered similar in scope and complexity as required by solicitation; flawed best-value analysis--agency failed to assess the vendors' differing strengths or otherwise explain why the quotations were technically equal) 

Northeast Military Sales, Inc., B-404153 (Jan. 13, 2011) (agency ignored adverse past performance evaluation concerning awardee so that its past performance rating of "exceptional" lacked a rational basis)

Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., B-403386, -.2 (Nov. 3, 2010) (erroneous upward adjustments to cost proposal in cost realism evaluation)

PMO Partnership Joint Venture, B-403214, .2 (Oct. 12, 2010) (solicitation did not require cost or pricing data so agency should not have rejected proposal for noncompliance with cost or pricing data requirements of FAR Part 15)

Douglas County Fire District #2, B-403228 (Oct. 4, 2010) (agency unreasonably rated incumbent's proposal as "fail" in the geographic coverage evaluation factor where it offered to provide same geographic coverage as it had successfully provided under predecessor contract and where its proposal language was similar to the awardee's, which the agency rated as "pass")

Biblia, Inc., B-403006 (Sep. 13, 2010) (agency failed to document basis for best value evaluation)

DRS ICAS, LLC, B-401852.4, .5 (Sep. 8, 2010) (numerous technical weaknesses assessed by agency's evaluators lacked a rational basis; agency should have considered additional performance under related contract that occurred between time of original evaluation and reevaluation after corrective action; agency improperly assessed a weakness for failure to explain an item for which neither the solicitation nor the specifications required an explanation)

Vanguard Recovery Assistance, Joint Venture, B-401679.8, .9, .10 (Sep. 8, 2010) (flawed past performance evaluation based on numerical scoring system that reduced offeror's overall rating for submitting additional information on two less relevant contracts, even though it received the highest adjectival rating on all the individual contracts it submitted)

System Engineering International, Inc., B-402754 (July 20, 2010)  (agency only included two higher-rated, higher-priced quotations in its price/technical tradeoff analysis when lower-priced, lower-rated quotations were technically acceptable)

Brican Inc., B-402602 (June 17, 2010) (unequal past performance and experience evaluations)

Wackenhut Services, Inc., B-402550.2 (June 7, 2010) (agency improperly evaluated a management approach prohibited by the solicitation as an attribute that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements)

Powersolv, Inc., B-402534, .2 (June 1, 2010) (evaluation of protester's project manager was inconsistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme and no evidence in record demonstrates agency meaningfully evaluated price in making award decision)

Contrack International, Inc., B-401871.5, .6, .7 (May 24, 2010) (flawed past performance evaluation)

Ewing Construction Co., B-401887.3, .4 (Apr. 26, 2010) (agency improperly evaluated part of proposal as rendering firm ineligible for award when, under solicitation's evaluation scheme, such a deficiency should only have resulted in proposal being downgraded)

J2A2JV, LLC, B-401663.4 (Apr. 19, 2010) (firm failed to meet definitive responsibility criterion of five years relevant experience)

Irving Burton Associates, Inc., B-401983.3 (Mar. 29, 2010) (flawed evaluation; lack of rational basis for agency's evaluation of awardee's transition plan and program milestones and protester's alleged lack of proposal detail)

Shaw-Parsons Infrastructure Recovery Consultants, LLC, B-401679.4, .5, .6, .7 (Mar. 10, 2010) (flawed past performance evaluation; failure to adequately consider narrative responses in past performance questionnaires)

General Dynamics One Source, LLC; Unisys Corporation, B-400340.5, .6 (January 20, 2010) (improper price realism evaluation re staffing; improper relaxation of solicitation requirement re incentive fee for only one offeror)

AINS, Inc., B-400760.4 (Jan. 19, 2010) (lack of meaningful discussions; flawed evaluation of quotations in response to solicitation for blanket purchase agreement)

PMO Partnership JV, B-401973.3, .5 (Jan. 14, 2010) (no rational basis for agency's determination that JV's proposed dual, overhead rate structure meant its accounting system was unacceptable, a matter of responsibility)

McKissack+Delcan JV II, B-401973.2, .4 (Jan. 13, 2010) (no rational basis for agency determination that JV's proposed dual, overhead rate structure meant its accounting system was unacceptable, a matter of responsibility)

C & B Construction, Inc., B-401988.2 (Jan. 10, 2010) (lack of documentation by agency of rationale for selecting higher-priced quotation for task order under BPA)

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., B-401961, .2 (Dec. 22, 2009) (agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and treated offerors unequally in its evaluation by (i) failing to apprise protester of weaknesses in its proposal to the same extent the agency did so with all other offerors and (ii) failing to evaluate other offerors' neglect to identify an issue required by the solicitation that the protester had reasonably identified based)

Milani Construction, LLC, B-401942 (Dec. 22, 2009) (rejection of proposal for fixed price contract on basis of lack of price realism was improper where agency did not announce that price realism would be an evaluation factor)

Coastal Environments, Inc., B-401889 (Dec. 18, 2009) (tradeoff analysis failed to include lowest priced proposals even though they were technically acceptable and low risk)

Velos, Inc., B-400500.8, .9 (Dec. 14, 2009) (source selection official's final evaluation was unreasonable where he ignored evaluation panel on one technical issue in favor of opinion of consultant who had only reviewed a response to one discussion question rather than proposal as a whole; performance risk evaluation based solely on date of D&B report was unreasonable.

Navistar Defense, LLC; BAE Systems, Tactical Vehicle Systems LP, B-401865. .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7 (Dec. 14, 2009) (improper past performance evaluation and risk assessment of performance capabilities)

Port of Bellingham, B-401837 (Dec. 2, 2009) (evaluation lacked a reasonable basis)

The Analysis Group, LLC, B-4 (Nov. 13, 2009) (agency improperly conducted discussions only with successful offeror and did not properly evaluate successful offeror's "impaired objectivity" OCI)

Health Net Federal Services, LLC, B-401652.3, -.5 (Nov. 4, 2009) (flawed past performance, price realism, and proposal risk evaluations, as well as appearance of conflict of interest)

Humana Military Healthcare Services, B-401652.2, -.4, -.6 (Oct. 28, 2009) (agency's evaluation unreasonably failed to fully recognize and reasonably account for the likely cost savings associated with protester's record of obtaining network provider discounts from its established network in the performance region )

Caddell Construction Co., B-401586, -401597, =401598 (Sep. 21, 2009) (agency had no basis for concluding, as required by Security Act, that offeror had sufficient relevant experience performing projects similar in size and scope to those required by the solicitation)

T-C Transcription, Inc., B-401470 (Sep. 16, 2009) (faulty evaluation)

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-400134.10 (Aug. 18, 2009) (improper technical evaluation; failure to discriminate among proposals where solicitation provided for evaluation of the extent to which they exceeded solicitation requirement)

Public Communications Services, Inc., B-400058, 400058.3 (July 18, 2009) (GAO has jurisdiction over a no-cost contract for provision of phone services to detainees; flawed evaluation; unequal treatment of offerors in evaluation)

AINS, Inc., B-400760.2, -.3 (June 12, 2009) (faulty evaluation of protester's proposal)

Ashbury International Group, Inc., B-401123 (June 1, 2009) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions; failure to conduct required tests on awardee's submittal)

Engineering Management & Integration, Inc., B-400356.4, -.5 (May 21, 2009) (unreasonable rejection of proposal for providing number of certified staff rather than percentage of certified staff)

Ahtna Support & Training Services, LLC, B-400947.2 (May 15, 2009) (unequal evaluation of experience of proposed subcontractors of awardee and protester)

CIGNA Government Services, B-401062.2, .3 (May 6, 2009) ( agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where it determined that certain of protester's proposed costs were understated and  adjusted most probable cost estimate associated with protester's costs upwards rather than reopening discussions to allow it an opportunity to address the issue; agency evaluated past performance of the awardee's minor subcontractor where solicitation provided for consideration of past performance only of "significant" or "critical" subcontractors; and (iii) agency presented no rational basis for its less favorable evaluation of protester's proposal for one of  awards contemplated under solicitation  than for another, essentially identical proposal submitted by protester for a different award under same solicitation)

American K-9 Detection Services, Inc., B-400464.6 (May 5, 2009) (lack of meaningful discussions)

Wisconsin Physician Service Insurance Corp., B-401063 (May 4, 2009) (flawed cost realism, technical, and past performance evaluations; lack of meaningful discussions re protester's past performance)

LIS, Inc., B-400646.2, .3 (Mar. 25, 2009) (faulty best value analysis lacking in supporting documentation)

The S. M. Stoller Corp., B- 400937, .3, .4 (Mar. 25, 2009) (improper relaxation of PWS requirements for one offeror without informing others that such relaxation was permissible)

ACCESS Systems, Inc., B-400623.3 (Mar. 4, 2009) (evaluation did not justify award to higher priced offeror)

Arc-Tech, Inc. B-400325.3 (Feb. 19, 2009) (improper exclusion of proposal from competitive range without documentation showing it was technically unacceptable and without evaluation of cost)

The Analysis Group, LLC, B-4 (Nov. 13, 2009) (agency improperly conducted discussions only with successful offeror and did not properly evaluate successful offeror's "impaired objectivity" OCI)

Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., B-400771, -.2 (Jan. 27, 2009) (past performance evaluation based upon contract too small to be considered similar to current procurement is not reasonable)

Tiger Truck, LLC, B-400685 (Jan. 14, 2009) (agency's failure to conduct meaningful discussion and failed to follow correct procedures for products identified as non-compliant with the Trade Agreements Act)

Velos, Inc., et al., B-400500, et al. (Nov. 28, 2008) (agency misled protester during discussions into believing that license software terms were acceptable and then found them unacceptable)

Burchick Construction Co., B-400342 (Oct. 6, 2008) (failure to conduct meaningful discussions regarding weaknesses in several parts of its technical proposal, including past performance, small business participation, and quality control plan)

Helicopter Transport Services LLC, B-400295 (Sep. 29, 2008) (undocumented past performance evaluation; improper technical evaluation on pass/fail basis)

Radiation Oncology Group of WNY, PC, B-310354.2, -.3 (Sept. 18, 2008) (late proposal revisions; lack of documented basis for evaluation)

ASRC Research & Technology Solutions, LLC, B-400217, -.2 (Aug. 21, 2008) (flawed technical risk and past performance evaluations; cost of hiring incumbent personnel)

New Jersey & H Street, LLC, B-311314.3 (June 30, 2008) (lack of meaningful discussions; improperly crediting awardee for an approach that did not comply with the solicitation's requirements)

Master Lock Company, LLC, B-309982.2 (June 24, 2008) (improperly raising awardee's evaluation scores in socioeconomic and JWOD evaluation factors solely on the basis that it was a small business)

Trammel Crow Co., B-311314.2 (June 20, 2008) (lack of meaningful discussions; improperly crediting awardee for an approach that did not comply with the solicitation's requirements)

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., B-311313 (June10, 2008) (flawed technical evaluation; flawed experience evaluation; undisclosed evaluation of transition risk involved in moving to non-incumbent)

MCT JV, B-311245.2; B-311245.4 (May 16, 2008) (lack of meaningful discussions; failure of agency to assess performance risks associated with  awardee's failure to follow solicitation criterion warning offerors not to propose unrealistically low costs after awardee capped its indirect rates below its actual costs)

Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC, B-311200; B-311200.2 (May 13, 2008) (defective price evaluation)

Native American Industrial Distributors, Inc., B-310737.3, .4, .5 (Apr. 15, 2008)(failure of awardee to provide required letters of commitment for all key personnel)

Fedcar Company, Ltd., B-310980. -.2, -.3 (Mar. 25, 2008)(faulty price evaluation; inadequate price/technical trade-off analysis; agency counter offered instead of accepting awardee's offer, so no contract formed)

Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. B-310372--press release (December 27, 2007) (faulty cost evaluation)

AT&T Corp., B-299542.3, -.4 (Nov. 16, 2007) (lack of meaningful discussion; irrational evaluation of management proposal)

Doyon American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC, B-310003, 310003.2 (Nov. 15, 2007) (faulty past experience evaluation)

Earl Industries, LLC, B-309996, 309996.4 (Nov. 5, 2007) (faulty cost realism and cost/technical tradeoff evaluation)

GlassLock, Inc., B-299931, 299931.2 (Oct. 10, 2007) (irrational evaluation of task order quotation)

Contingency Management Group, LLC; IAC World Services, Inc. B-309752 et al (Oct. 7, 2007) (flawed evaluation)

General Dynamics Information Technology, B-299873  (Sept. 19, 2007) (irrational price evaluation)

Systems Research and Applications Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B- 299818 (Sept. 6, 2007) (admission of former employee/father of current employee to protective order; failure of agency to qualitatively assess differences in proposals in best value procurement)

Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, B-299766; B-299766.2 (August 10, 2007) (lack of meaningful discussions; failure to notify offeror of defects in prototype; failure to permit offeror to correct defects in prototype) 

Carson Helicopter Services, Inc., B-299720, -299720.2 (July 30, 2007) (unreasonable evaluation)

Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.4, -299308.4 (July 27, 2007) (evaluation lacks rational basis) 

Caddell Constr. Co., B- 298949.2 (June 15, 2007) (evaluation in contravention of statutory requirements--overturned by the CoFC in the Grunley Walsh decision)

IBM Corp., B-299504, 299504.2 (June, 4, 2007)(improper price/cost evaluation; improper cost adjustments to proposals)   

Apptis, Inc., B-299457, -2199457.2, 299457.3 (May 23, 2007)(irrational evaluation of technical performance risk; lack of meaningful discussions; untimely protest that evaluator had conflict of interest)

Midland Supply, Inc., B-298720.3 (May 14, 2007) (evaluation; past performance)

Computer Sciences Corp. et al., B-298494.2 et al. (May 10, 2007) (discussions)

L-3 Communications Titan Corp., B-299317, et al (Mar. 29, 2007) (evaluation)

Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, B-296490.3, et al, Mar. 23, 2007 (staffing evaluation; past performance)

Sikorsky Aircraft Co.; Lockheed Martin Syst. Int., B-299145, et al (Feb. 26, 2007) (cost evaluation)

Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc., B- 298840.2 (Feb. 6, 2007) (evaluation; discussions)

Magellan Health Services, B- 298912 (Jan. 5, 2007) (cost realism evaluation; best value determination)

ALATEC Inc., B-298730, Dec. 4, 2006 (evaluation and small business issues)

Midland Supply, Inc., B-298720; B-298720.2, Nov. 29, 2006 (evaluation)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., B-298694, et al, Nov. 16, 2006 (misevaluation)

Singleton Enterprises, B-298576, Oct. 30, 2006 (unreasonable past performance evaluation)

SunEdison, LLC, B-298583; B-298583.2, Oct. 30, 2006 (misevaluation of price)

Multimax, Inc., et al, B-298249.6, et al, Oct. 24, 2006 (discussions and evaluation)

ITT Federal Services Int'l Corp., B-296783 (Oct. 11, 2005) (evaluation)

Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., B-296493.6, Oct. 6, 2006 (evaluation and responsibility)

Family Entertainment Services, Inc. B-298047.3, Sept. 20, 2006 (evaluation)

Advanced Systems Development, Inc., B-298411; B-298411.2, Sept. 19, 2006 (discussion and evaluation)

Intercon Assocs., Inc., B-298282; B-298282.2, Aug. 10, 2006 (evaluation)

Serco, Inc., B-298266, Aug. 9, 2006 (evaluation)

Fabritech, Inc., B-298247; B-298247.2, July 27, 2006 (discussions; small business responsibility)

Magnum Medical Personnel, A Joint Venture, B-297687.2, June 20, 2006 (evaluation)

University of Dayton Research Inst., B-296946.6, June 15, 2006 (discussions)

CIGNA Government Services, LLC, B-297915.2, May 4, 2006 (discussions and late revisions)

Metro Machine Corp., B-297879.2, May 3, 2006 (cost evaluation)

TVI Corp., B-297849, Apr. 19, 2006 (evaluation: past performance risk and small business participation)

Low & Associates, Inc., B-297444.2, Apr. 13, 2006 (improper waiver of requirements)

Al Long Ford, B-297807, Apr. 12, 2006 (evaluation)

Novex Enterprises, B-297660; B-297660.2, Mar. 6, 2006 (evaluation)

Information Ventures, Inc., B-297276.2, et al, Mar. 1, 2006 (evaluation)

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., B-297553, Feb. 15, 2006 (evaluation)

Computers Universal, Inc., B-297552, Feb. 14, 2006 (evaluation)

MMI-Federal Marketing Service Corp., B-297537, Feb. 8, 2006 (reliance on offeror's representation)

KIC Development, LLC, B-297425.2, Jan. 26, 2006 (evaluation)

Sytronics, Inc., B-297346, Dec. 29, 2005 (evaluation)

Spectrum Security Services, Inc., B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Dec. 29, 2005 (small business size; evaluation)

Global, A 1st Flagship Company, B-297235; B-297235.2, Dec. 27,2005 (evaluation)

Wiltex Inc., B-297234.2; B-297234.3, Dec. 27, 2005 (noncompliance with material requirements)

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., B-296176.2, Dec. 9, 2005 (past performance evaluation)

Haworth, Inc., B-297077, B-297077.2, Nov. 23, 2005 (evaluation and responsiveness)

YORK Building Services, Inc., B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4, Nov. 3, 2005 (evaluation)

Spherix, Inc., B-294572.3; B-294572.4, Oct. 20, 2005 (discussions and evaluation)

J.A. Farrington Janitorial Services, B-296875, Oct. 18, 2005 (small business responsibility; past performance)

Cogent Systems, Inc., B-295990.4; B-295990.5, Oct. 6, 2005 (evaluation)

BAE Technical Services, Inc., B-296699, Oct. 5, 2005 (evaluation)

Coastal Maritime Stevedoring, LLC, B-296627, Sept. 22, 2005 (evaluation)

R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering, B-296435.4; B-296435.9, Sept. 15, 2005 (evaluation)

Johnson Controls Security Systems, B-296490; -.2, Aug. 29, 2005 (proposal misrepresentations; best value)

Liquidity Services, Inc., B-294053, Aug. 18, 2004 (evaluation)

Resource Consultants, Inc., B-293073.3; et al, June 2, 2004 (price evaluation)

Front Line Apparel Group, B-295989, June 1, 2005 (discussions and evaluation)

Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., B-296029, June 1, 2005 (relaxation of performance requirements)

Patriot Contract Services -- Advisory Opinion, B-294777.3, May 11, 2005 (evaluation--advisory opinion)

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc.; Broadwing, B-295526, et al, Mar. 16, 2005 (evaluation)

Creative Information Technology, Inc., B-293073.10, Mar. 16, 2005 (meaningful discussions)

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., B-295352, et al., Feb. 8, 2005 (evaluation preference)

Cooperativa Muratori Ruminiti, B-294890 et al., Jan. 21, 2005 (evaluation)

Cooley/Engineered Membranes; GTA Containers, Inc., B-294896.2 et al., Jan 21, 2005 (evaluation--technical acceptability)

EPW Closure Services, et al, B-294910, et al, Jan. 12, 2005 (evaluation)

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Corp., et al, B-295401, et al, Feb. 24, 2005 (Druyun; biased evaluation; lack of equal discussions)

ProTech Corp., B-294818, Dec. 30, 2004 (evaluation)

Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc., B-293706.5, Sept. 10, 2004 (discussions)

Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., B-292354; B-292388, Sept. 2, 2003 (cost realism evaluation)  


Responsiveness; Bid Mistakes and Corrections; Late Bids

Herman Construction Group, Inc., B-415480 (Jan. 5, 2018) (record did not support agency's conclusion that awardee had submitted sufficient evidence to support correction of allegedly mistaken bid)

Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., B-413143, .2 (Aug. 23, 2016) (awardee's proposal based on assumption that agency would provide on-site workspace when solicitation clearly stated it would not)

AECOM Technical Services, Inc., B-411862 (Nov. 12, 2015) (protest against agency’s decision to reject the protester’s proposal because it was submitted to an incorrect location within the FedConnect web portal is sustained where record shows that: the complete proposal was timely submitted; the agency was contemporaneously aware of the proposal’s submission; the agency plans to make multiple awards, so that no other competitor can claim to have been meaningfully harmed by accepting the proposal; the proposal was out of protester’s control and therefore could not have been altered or revised after the deadline for proposal submission had passed; and acceptance of the proposal as timely will enhance competition)

Latvian Connection, LLC, B-411489 (Aug. 11, 2014) (agency did not provide offeror sufficient time to respond to solicitation amendment) 

IBM U.S. Federal, et al., B-409806, .2, .4, .5 (Aug. 15, 2014) (quotation took exception to material solicitation terms, violated the solicitation’s page limit provisions, and the SSA’s decision overruling technical evaluation committee’s determination regarding technical unacceptability of quotation was inadequately documented)

Hamilton Pacific Chamberlain, LLC, B-409795 (Aug. 11, 2014) (awardee's failure to submit original of bid guarantee could not be waived as minor informality)

AeroSage LLC, B-409627 (July 2, 2014) (Contracting Officer improperly bypassed low bidder that had timely and properly confirmed its bid in accordance with solicitation terms but who had not timely responded to an additional confirmation requirement not identified in solicitation but imposed by the Contracting Officer)

ICI, Services, Inc., B-409231.2 (Apr. 23, 2014) (agency was wrong to reject submission of revised proposal by email to Contract Specialist because agency had experienced problems with designated SeaPort-e Proposal Event Website portal for receiving proposals, offeror had received permission from specialist to email revision to him, email was timely sent and received, and firm timely complied with agency's subsequent solicitation amendment  instructing all offerors to resubmit proposal revisions to the website portal)

C&D Construction, Inc., B-408930.2 (Feb. 14, 2014) (agency improperly waived solicitation requirement for awardee by ignoring omission in bid that resulted in lack of clear commitment to perform optional scope of work)

Infoshred LLC, B-407086 (Oct. 26, 2012)  (agency was wrong to reject quotation for failure to acknowledge immaterial solicitation amendment that did not impose additional requirements on contractor)

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc., B-405940 (Jan. 12, 2012) (bid improperly rejected as nonresponsive for proposing chiller and refrigerant not prohibited by specifications)

W. B. Construction and Sons, Inc., B-405818, .2 (Jan. 4, 2012) (improper rejection of bid as nonresponsive for failing to provide price for one of many line items included in bid schedule, where omitted item was (i) divisible from solicitation’s overall requirements, (ii) de minimis as to total cost, and (iii) would not affect the competitive standing of the bidders; improper rejection of bid as unbalanced where  agency failed to conduct  FAR 15.404-1(g) risk analysis to determine whether unbalanced bid posed unacceptable risk to Government)

NCI Information Systems, Inc., B-405745 (Dec. 14, 2011) (proposal is late because submitted after time stated in FAR (4:30 pm) for application to solicitations that do not include a specific time by which proposals must be received)

Shaka, Inc., B-405552 (Nov. 14, 2011) (agency improperly found rejected bid bond that bidder obtained bond through its sub's relationship with the surety and, therefore, improperly rejected bid as nonresponsive)

MEDI-e-ImageData Corp., B-405164 (Sep. 16, 2011) (awardee's proposal did not comply with material requirements of request for quotations)

Solers, Inc., B-404032.3, .4 (Apr. 6, 2011) (awardee took exception to solicitation requirement to propose fixed price)

Ocean Services, LLC, B-404690 (Apr. 6, 2011) (agency should not have rejected bid whose acceptance period expired on a Saturday when the bidder revived it the next Monday by extending the acceptance period)

Hostetter, Keach & Cassandra Construction LLC, B-403329 (Oct. 15, 2010) (discrepancy in names of bidder and bid bond principal not cause for rejection of bid as nonresponsive where the record shows they are the same entity)

Data Integrators, Inc., B-213928 (Jan. 31, 2008) (agency's improper acceptance of a late quotation)

Bighorn Lumber Co., B- 299906 (Sept. 25, 2007) (mistake in bid; correction)

M.Braun, Inc., B-298935.2 (May 21, 2007) (tardy, qualified quotation)

SourceLink Ohio, LLC, B-229258 (Mar. 12, 2007) (responsiveness)

Tessa Structures, LLC, B-298835, Dec. 14, 2006 (improper finding of nonresponsiveness)

Squires Timber Co., B-298859, Dec. 1, 2006 (improper finding of nonresponsiveness)

Miramar Construction, Inc., B-298609, Oct. 31, 2006 (improper bid correction)

Wyse Technology, Inc., B-297454, Jan. 24, 2006 (Trade Agreements Act; place of manufacture)

Charter Environmental, Inc., B-297219, Dec. 5, 2005 (responsiveness and responsibility)

Haworth, Inc., B-297077, B-297077.2, Nov. 23, 2005 (evaluation and responsiveness)

MadahCom, Inc.--Reconsideration,B-297261.2, Nov. 21, 2005 (timeliness)

Odyssey International, Inc., B-296855.2, Nov. 16, 2005 (bid mistake)

Fort Mojave/Hummel, a Joint Venture, B-296961, Oct. 18, 2005 (responsiveness)


OMB Circular A-76 Cost Comparisons


Bruce Bancroft--Agency Tender Official; Sam Rodriquez--Designated Employee Agent (lack of agency documentation supporting conclusion that staffing plan was adequate)

Frank A. Bloomer--Agency Tender Official, B-401482.2, .3 , (Oct. 19, 2009) (improper cost and cost-realism evaluations of private sector offer in OMB Circular A-76 public-private competition)

New Dynamics Corp., B-401272 (July 8, 2009) (agency failed to reasonably consider whether agency tender's material and supply costs were realistic in A-76 procurement)

Rosemary Livingston--Agency Tender Official, B-401102.2 (July 6, 2009) (OMB A-76 public-private competition; inadequate documentation and inconsistent agency statements concerning tender's shortcomings)


FSS Contracts; Task and Delivery Order Issues


Savannah Cleaning Systems, Inc., B-415817 (Mar. 27, 2018) (improper to issue FSS purchase order where quoted item (i) did not meet specifications, (ii) was not shown to be equivalent to specified brand name item, and (iii) was not listed on vendor's FSS schedule)

Scope Infotech, Inc., B-414782.4, .5 (Mar. 22, 2018) (in competition among FSS vendors, agency improperly issued a task order to one vendor that included non-FSS items)

Bluewater Management Group, LLC, B- (Sep. 18, 2017) (task order issued to firm was for services not included in its FSS contract)

Threat Management Group, LLC, B-413729 (Dec. 21, 2016) (limited information made available by agency supports protester's contention that agency issued out-of-scope task order rather than competing requirement)

Tempus Nova, Inc., B-412821 (June 14, 2016) (agency issued delivery order for item not included in underlying FSS blanket purchase agreement)

US Investigative Services, Professional Services Division, B-410452.2 (Jan. 15, 2015) (record does not support agency's determination that purchase order was within the scope of awardee's underlying FSS contract where contract did not include labor categories involved in protested purchase order)

Aldevra, B-406608, et al, (July 13, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by issuing four FSS acquisitions without having first determined whether two or more SDVOSBs could meet agency's requirements at  reasonable price)

Kingdomware Technologies, B-406507 (May 30, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by conducting FSS procurement (rather than setting acquisition aside for SDVOSBs) even though its market research showed at least 20 SDVOSBs could perform work)

Aldevra, B-406331, 406391 (Apr. 20, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by issuing FSS acquisition without having first determined whether two or more SDVOSBs could meet agency's requirements at  reasonable price)

Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., B-406262 (Mar. 21, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by issuing FSS acquisition without having first determined whether two or more SDVOSBs could meet agency's requirements at  reasonable price)

Kingdomware Technologies, B-405727 (Dec. 19, 2011) (agency improperly used FSS procedures rather than setting procurement aside for SDVOSBs as required by the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006)

Rapiscan Systems, Inc., B-401773.2, .3 (Mar. 15, 2010) (purchase order for items not included in vendor's FSS contract was improper where solicitation had limited competition to vendors holding FSS contracts)

DynCorp International LLC, B-402349 (Mar. 15, 2010) (task order solicitations were outside the scope of multiple award contracts)

American Security Programs, Inc., B-402069, .2 (Jan. 15, 2010) (task order was outside scope of FSS contract)

C & B Construction, Inc., B-401988.2 (Jan. 10, 2010) (lack of documentation by agency of rationale for selecting higher-priced quotation for task order under BPA)

Science Applications International Corp., B-401773 (Nov. 10, 2009) (purchase order for items not on vendor's FSS contract list was improper after solicitation limited to firms holding FSS contracts for required items)

Carahsoft Technology Corp., B-401169  (June 29, 2009) (agency unreasonably issued an order based on a proposal that failed to meet one of the minimum technical requirements of the specification)

Seaborn Health Care, Inc., B-400429 (Oct. 27, 2008) (improper requirement for non-FSS supervisory services in RFQ limited to FSS contractors)

Global Communications Solutions, Inc., B-299044; B-299044.2 (Jan. 29, 2007) (delivery order)

3SG Corp., B-298957 (Jan. 5, 2007) (issuance of delivery order)

Tarheel Specialties, Inc., B-298197; B-298197.2, July 17, 2006 (task order)

Envirosolve LLC, B-294974.4, June 8, 2005 (blanket purchased agreements; failure to take corrective action)

KEI Pearson, Inc., B- 294226.3 et al, Jan. 10, 2005 (issuance of task order)

Changed Requirements


Global Computer Enterprises, Inc., B-404597, et al. (Mar. 9, 2011) (Government's needs for migration services during first two years of contract changed so that they were much less than the amount of migration on which offerors were required to bid)


Sole Source; Restricted Competition; Bundling


Global SuperTanker Services, LLC, B-414987, .2 (Nov. 6, 2017) (detailed decision concluding that agency's rationales for restrictive specifications are unsupported in the record and unduly restrictive of competition)

Onix Networking Corp., B-411841 (Nov. 9, 2015) (out-of-scope modification to task order for product not contemplated by original award amounted to improper sole-source award)

Fire Risk Management, Inc., B-411552 (Aug. 20, 2015) (agency's market research was flawed and did not support agency's conclusion that the procurement should not be set aside for SDVOSBs)

Triad Isotopes, Inc., B-411360 (July 16, 2015) (agency failed to conduct adequate market analysis to determine that it would receive at least two bids from responsive, responsible small business and, therefore, decision to restrict competition to small businesses was unreasonable)

Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc., et al., B-409356.2-.6 (Mar. 31, 2014) (agreement to award sole-source contract in exchange for withdrawal of earlier protest was not adequate justification for sole-source award)

Asiel Enterprises, Inc., B-408315.2 (Sep. 5, 2013) (10 U.S.C. 2492 cannot be used as authority to justify transferring an appropriated fund mission essential requirement to a nonappropriated fund instrumentality using a memorandum of agreement)

Desktop Alert, Inc., B-408196 (July 22, 2013) (agency failed to demonstrate reasonable basis for brand name restriction in solicitation for emergency mass notification system)

Asiel Enterprises, Inc. B-406780, 406836 (Aug. 28, 2012) (Air Force lacked authority to transfer of mission essential food service requirements to NAFI on a non-competitive basis and without a sole-source justification)

Aldevra, B-406331, 406391 (Apr. 20, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by issuing FSS acquisition without having first determined whether two or more SDVOSBs could meet agency's requirements at  reasonable price)

DNO, Inc., B-406256, .2 (Mar. 22, 2012) (agency did not properly investigate whether solicitation should be set aside for small businesses)

Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., B-406262 (Mar. 21, 2012) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 by issuing FSS acquisition without having first determined whether two or more SDVOSBs could meet agency's requirements at  reasonable price)

Aldevra, B-406205 (Mar. 14, 2012) (VA failed to consider whether solicitation should be set aside for SDVOSBs)

Total Health Resources, B-403209 (Oct. 4, 2010) (solicitation requirement for prime's experience is unduly restrictive where agency cannot establish sub's experience would not suffice)

Information Ventures, Inc., B-403321 (Sep. 27, 2010) (agency did not justify decision not to award multiple ID/IQ contracts rather than just one)

RBC Bearings, Inc. B-401661, -.2 (Oct. 27, 2009) (lack of advance planning doomed sole source award)

OSC Solutions, Inc.  B-401498 (Sep. 14, 2009) (cancellation of RFQ and issuance of orders on a sole-source basis to a non-profit agency under the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act is improper because the acquired items are not on the procurement list maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled)

Major Contracting Services, Inc. B-401472 (Sep. 14, 2009) (agency lacked sufficient basis for 4-month sole-source extension of contract)

Mission Critical Solutions, B-401057 (May 4, 2009) (invalid sole-source award; agency's failure to consider availability of HUB-Zone competitors)

Solutions Lucid Group, LLC, B-400967 (Apr. 2, 2009)(agency did not have rational basis for failing to solicit from protester)

SMARTnet, Inc., B-400651.2 (Jan. 27, 2009) (solicitation requirement exceeded agency's minimum needs)

Critical Process Filtration, Inc. B-400751 (Jan. 22, 2009) (agency may not split orders to come within simplified acquisition threshold, and utilize its procedures, where total estimated quantity exceeds simplified acquisition threshold)

Delex Systems, Inc., B-400403 (Oct. 8, 2008) (per FAR 19.502-2(b) (request for delivery order under multiple-award ID/IQ contract should have been set aside for small businesses rather than being unrestricted)

Superlative Technologies, Inc. B-310849, -.2 (Jan. 4, 2008) (procurement integrity; improper cancellation of solicitation)

Gonzales-McCaulley Investment Group, Inc., B- 299936.2 (Nov. 5, 2007) (agency failed to investigate its own concerns about source selection; canceling solicitation was mere pretext)

Executive Protective Security Service, Inc. B- 299954.3 (Oct. 22, 2007) (violation of Stafford Act)

Barnes Aerospace Group, B-298864; B-298864.2, Dec. 26, 2006 (sole source, source approval)

eFedBudget Corp., B-298627, Nov. 15, 2006 (sole source)

MadahCom, Inc., B-298277, Aug. 7, 2006 (undue restrictions on competition)

M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC, B-297616; B-297616.2, Feb. 14, 2006 (sole source)

Crane & Company, Inc., B-297398, Jan. 18, 2006 (length of contract and restrictive competition)

Europe Displays, Inc., B-297099, Dec. 5, 2005 (sole source)

WorldWide Language Resources, Inc., B-296984, et al, Nov. 14, 2005 (sole source)

Sigmatech, Inc., B-296401, Aug. 10, 2005 (bundling)

Rand & Jones Enterprises Co., B-296483, Aug. 4, 2005 (improper cancellation of solicitation)

Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti, B-294980.5, July 27, 2005 (restrictions on competition; proposal revision)

VSE Corp., B-290452.3, et al, May 23, 2005 (sole source)

USA Fabrics, Inc., B-295737; B-295737.2, Apr. 19, 2005 (small business set-aside; restrictions on competition)


Small Business, SDVOSB, and HUBZone Issues


Goodwill Industries of the Valleys; SourceAmerica, B-415137 (Nov. 29, 2017) (agency violated Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act and its implementation under the AbilityOne program by failing to acquire custodial services for leased premises from mandatory source)

Competitive Range Solutions, LLC, B-413104.10 (Apr. 18, 2017) (agency’s exclusion of protester's proposal based on its failure to have sufficient capabilities in health-related missions amounted to a nonresponsibility determination that should have been referred to the SBA under SBA’s COC procedures)

Spur Design, LLC, B-412245.3 (Feb. 24, 2016) (agency improperly interpreted Rule of Two mandate of Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 to require it to set-aside multiple-award ID/IQ solicitations for VOSBs or SDVOSBs only when there was a reasonable expectation that two qualified firms would compete for each of the contemplated number (in this case 14) of awards.

Latvian Connection, LLC, B-410947 (Mar. 31, 2015) (small business improperly excluded from competition due to perceived lack of business integrity without required CoC referral to SBA)

FitNet Purchasing Alliance, B-410263 (Nov. 26, 2014) (agency's past performance evaluation was flawed in several respects and also constituted a nonresponsibility determination with respect to the protester, which should have been referred to SBA for COC determination)

BGI-Fiore JV, LLC, B-409520 (May 29, 2014) (agency improperly determined that 8(a) JV member was ineligible to compete because SBA had not approved JV agreement by the time proposals were submitted--SBA's regulations only require approval by time of award)

Phoenix Environmental Design Inc., B-407104 (Oct. 26, 2012) (purchase order issued by VA to small business violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, where VA (i) was aware of SDVOSBs that appeared capable of performing the work and (ii) did not conclude there were not two or more SDVOSBs that could perform the work at fair and reasonable prices)

The Argos Group, LLC, B-406040 (Jan. 24, 2012) (pre-award protest; 10 percent price evaluation preference required by Historically Underutilized Business Zone Act of 1997, 15 U.S.C. § 657a(b)(3)(B), should be applied in GSA lease procurement because statute applies "in any case in which a contract is to be awarded on the basis of full and open competition," and (i) the lease that will result from this procurement is a contract; (ii) the agency is using full and open competition to award the contract; and (iii) there is no language in the statute suggesting that an exception is applicable for GSA lease procurements)

Commandeer Construction Co. LLC, B-405771 (Dec. 29, 2011) (agency improperly rejected bid of apparently successful offeror on SDVOSB set-aside because the bidder was not listed as eligible on VA's Vendor Information pages when solicitation indicated such businesses were entitled to expedited verification reviews)

W. B. Construction and Sons, Inc., B-405874, .2 (Dec. 16, 2011) (improper award of 8(a) contract to a legal entity form (corporation) different from the one that submitted the proposal (LLC)

Kingdomware Technologies, B-405727 (Dec. 19, 2011) (agency improperly used FSS procedures rather than setting procurement aside for SDVOSBs as required by the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006)

Construct Solutions, Inc., B-405288, .2 (Oct. 11, 2011) (agency should terminate award and award contract to protester where SBA reversed its initial refusal to issue COC to SDVOSB protester because it was based on use of wrong standard for determining compliance with "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause )

Aldevra, B-405271, -405524 (Oct. 11, 2011) (VA violated Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 and implementing regulations in the VAAR by using non-mandatory FSS procedures rather than setting aside acquisition for  SDVOSBs; FAR provisions implementing separate Veterans Benefit Act of 2003 are not controlling)

Explo Systems, Inc., B-404952, .2 (July 8, 2011) (solicitation language clearly required agency to apply HUBZone price evaluation preference in evaluating proposals, even though HUBZone proposal was lower in price than the large business proposal)

Powerhouse Design Architects & Engineers, Ltd., B-403174 et al. (Oct. 7, 2010) (VA failed to set aside architect-engineering services procurements for SDVOSBs)

Rice Services, Inc., B-402966.2 (Sep. 16, 2010) (agency failed to consider whether SDVOSB set-aside should be reserved for HUBZone concerns)

Rice Services, Inc., B-403746 (Sep. 16, 2010) (agency failed to consider whether SDVOSB set-aside should be reserved for HUBZone concerns)

DGR Associates, Inc., B-402404 (May 14, 2010) (agency failed to consider whether conditions for HUBZone set-aside existed before proceeding with 8(a) set-aside)

Eagle Home Medical Corp., B-402387 (Mar. 29, 2010) (agency failed to amend solicitation to comply with SBA OHA decision that NAICS code was improper)

Delex Systems, Inc., B-400403 (Oct. 8, 2008) (per FAR 19.502-2(b) (request for delivery order under multiple-award ID/IQ contract should have been set aside for small businesses rather than being unrestricted)

International Program Group, Inc. B-400278, 400308 (Sep. 19, 2008) (agency failed to consider whether conditions for HUB-Zone set-aside existed before proceeding with SDVOSB set-aside)

Singleton Enterprises-GMT Mechanical, A Joint Venture, B-310552 (Jan. 10, 2008) (procuring agency's improper determination that offeror was nonresponsive due to lack of SDVOSB status)

Alliance Detective & Security Service, Inc., B-299342 (Apr.  13, 2007)(small business size)    

MCS Portable Restroom Service, B-299291 (Mar. 28, 2007)(SDVOSB set-aside; sole source)

Hydroid LLC, B-299072 (Jan. 31, 2007) (ineligible small business)

ALATEC Inc., B-298730, Dec. 4, 2006 (evaluation and small business issues)

Bausch & Lomb, Inc., B-298444, Sept. 21, 2006 (sole source)

Fabritech, Inc., B-298247; B-298247.2, July 27, 2006 (discussions; small business responsibility)

Spectrum Security Services, Inc., B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Dec. 29, 2005 (small business size; evaluation)

J.A. Farrington Janitorial Services, B-296875, Oct. 18, 2005 (small business responsibility; past performance)

USA Fabrics, Inc., B-295737; B-295737.2, Apr. 19, 2005 (small business set-aside; restrictions on competition)

Conflicts of Interest; Procurement Integrity Act

Dell Services Federal Government, Inc., B-414461, .2 (June 21, 2017) (agency's Procurement Integrity Act determination that disclosure of protester's proposals had not adversely competition was not reasonable; agency did not adequately investigate or address possible OCIs of protester's competitor)

AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., B-413012, .2 (July 28, 2016) (record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated a potential unequal access to information conflict arising from the relationship between the awardee and one of its proposed subcontractors; past performance evaluation contained errors in the assignment of adjectival ratings, which were subsequently relied upon by source selection authority in the award decision)

ASM Research, B-412187 (Jan. 7, 2016) (agency failed to reasonably consider a potential conflict of interest that would be created by the awardee evaluating under one task order the performance of items that would have been developed, implemented, and deployed by the awardee under another task order)

Satellite Tracking of People, LLC, B-411845, .2 (Nov. 6, 2015) (agency failed to investigate or mitigate OCI)

International Resources Group, B-409346.2, .6, .9 (Dec. 11, 2014) (agency failed to adequately investigate whether awardee's employment of high level agency official involved with procurement had given awardee access non-public, competitively useful information)

VSE Corp., B-404833.4 (Nov. 21, 2011) (Contracting Officer's termination of awarded contract based on appearance of impropriety due to contractor's employment of former federal employee as consultant lacks rational basis, being largely based misunderstandings and unfounded assumptions as to facts and applicable law)

PCCP Constructors, JV; Bechtel Infrastructure Corp., B-405036, et al. (Aug. 4, 2011) (agency's investigation of OCI was inadequate because it did not consider former official's access to source selection information about procurement through prior access to documents and continuing contacts with source selection officials) 

B. L. Harbert Brasfield & Gorrie, JV, B-402229 (Feb. 16, 2010) (two types of organizational conflicts of interest: unequal access to information and biased ground rules)

McCarthy/Hunt, JV, B-402229.2 (Feb. 16, 2010) (two types of organizational conflicts of interest: unequal access to information and biased ground rules)

C2C Solutions, Inc., B-401106.5 (Jan. 25, 2010) (inadequate evaluation of mitigation plan for organizational conflict of interest)

Cahaba Safeguards Administrators, LLC, B-401842.2 (Jan. 25, 2010) (inadequate evaluation of mitigation plan for organizational conflict of interest)

Health Net Federal Services, LLC, B-401652.3, -.5 (Nov. 4, 2009) (flawed past performance, price realism, and proposal risk evaluations, as well as appearance of conflict of interest)

L-3 Services, Inc., B-400134.11, -.12 (Sep. 3, 2009) (organizational conflicts of interest)

The Analysis Group, LLC, B-4 (Nov. 13, 2009) (agency improperly conducted discussions only with successful offeror and did not properly evaluate successful offeror's "impaired objectivity" OCI)

Nortel Government Solutions, Inc., B-299522.5, -.6 (Dec. 30, 2008) (organizational conflicts of interest)

AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., B-400216 (Aug. 28, 2008) (organizational conflicts of interest; agency's failure to evaluate offeror's mitigation plan; agency's failure to give offeror opportunity to respond to perceived weaknesses in its proposal)

Celadon Laboratories, Inc., B-298533, Nov. 1, 2006 (conflicts of interest)

Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc., B-293105.18; B-293105.19, Jan. 17, 2006 (conflict of interest; responsibility)

Alion Science & Technology Corp., B-297342, Jan. 9, 2006 (conflicts of interest)


Bid & Proposal and/or Protest Costs

HESCO Bastion, Ltd--Costs, B-415526.3 (Apr. 3, 2018) (agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to clearly meritorious protest)

KWR Construction, Inc.--Costs, B-412914.2 (Feb. 3, 2017) (protester's protest based on agency report was clearly meritorious even though GAO required further development of the record because that development just showed the agency's response to the protest was not meritorious; agency unduly delayed taking corrective action when it put protester to further expense by responding to protester's meritorious protest grounds raised following receipt of agency report and requiring protester to reply)

22nd Century Team, LLC--Costs, B-412742.4 (Dec. 15, 2016) (recommends award of costs except for supplemental protest issue in response to which agency did not delay corrective action)

Technatomy Corp., Octo Consulting Group, Inc.--Costs, B-413116.49, .50 (Dec. 14, 2016) (recommends award of costs because agency undertook corrective action only after outcome prediction conference)

Vencore Services and Solutions, Inc.--Costs, B-412949.3 (Dec. 12, 2016) (grants request for higher than statutory $150/hour attorneys fees based on  increase in cost of living using DOL's CPI)

ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.--Costs, B-411854.4, .7 (Nov. 9, 2016) (recommends award of protest costs where contractor was required to file multiple protests after agency failed to fulfill commitment to corrective action following first protest)

Shertech Pharmacy Piedmont, LLC--Costs, B-412297.3 (Oct. 28, 2016) (recommends award of costs only for clearly meritorious protest grounds)

East Coast Nuclear Pharmacy--Costs, B-412053.5 (Aug. 31, 2016) (after agency unduly delayed taking corrective actions, GAO recommends reimbursement of costs for all protest actions related to the one meritorious, severable protest ground)

TRAX International Corp.--Costs, B-410441.8 (Aug. 17, 2016) (reimburses costs of challenging agency's undue delay in undertaking corrective action in response to clearly meritorious challenging its implementation of corrective action following a prior protest)

Fluor Energy Technology Services, LLC--Costs, B-411466.3 (June 6, 2016) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs because agency waited until after ADR outcome prediction conference to undertake corrective action)

Chase Supply, Inc.--Costs, B-411059.3, et al. (May 17, 2016) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs because agency waited until well after agency report was filed and almost to end of 100-day statutory period before undertaking corrective action)

Chase Supply, Inc.--Costs, B-411849.3 (May 17, 2016) (recommends reimbursement of costs because, even though agency undertook corrective action before filing agency report, it was tardy considering agency already knew of defective solicitation prior to protest filing and prior protests were further evidence of agency delays in responding to current protest)

Debcon, Inc.--Costs, B-412298.3 (Apr. 26, 2016) (protester entitled to costs only for severable protest ground that was clearly meritorious)

Genesis Business Systems--Costs, B-411264.11 (Dec. 10, 2015) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs only for severable portion of protest that was clearly meritorious  (and protest grounds that were intertwined with it))

PB&A, Inc.;  Environmental Synectics, Inc.--Costs, B-410074.3, .4  (Sep. 15, 2015) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs only for primary protest ground which was clearly meritorious)

Sabel Systems Technology Solutions, LLC--Costs, B-410537.3 (Aug. 12, 2015) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs only for severable portion of protest that was clearly meritorious)

Sabel Systems Technology Solutions, LLC--Costs, B-410537.3 (Aug. 2015) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs only for severable portion of protest that was clearly meritorious)

JRS Staffing Services--Costs, B-410098.6, et al. (Aug. 21, 2015) (recommends reimbursement of protest costs only for severable portion of protest that was noted by GAO to be clearly meritorious during outcome prediction ADR)

K Systems, Inc--Costs, B- 408124.6 (Dec. 16, 2014) (recommends reimbursement of legal fees except for pre-protest costs related to attending debriefing and post-protest costs related to considering possible next steps; recommends reimbursement at requested rate of $225 per hour because FASA does not impose $150 per hour cap on small businesses)

CACI Technologies, Inc.--Costs, B-407923.3 (Aug. 13, 2014) (recommends reimbursement of costs because agency waited until three days after outcome prediction conference to undertake corrective action)

VSE Corp.; The Univ. of Hawaii--Costs, B-407164.11, .12 (June 23, 2014) (recommends reimbursement of costs only for segregable protest grounds where agency took corrective action after protesters filed comments on agency report)

Intermarkets Global--Costs, B-400660.14 (July 2, 2014) (absent more reliable documentation from contractor, agency reasonably calculated  claimed costs attributable to successful protest issue based on percentage of protest pages devoted to that issue)

Loyal Source Government Services, LLC--Costs, B-407791.4 (Feb. 14, 2014) (limits award of costs to segregable protest ground that was clear meritorious)

Carney, Inc.--Costs, B-408176.13 (Feb. 14, 2014) (limits recovery of costs to segregable protest ground that was clearly meritorious)

Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc.; 10 Tanker Carrier, LLC--Costs, B-406920.6, .7 (Aug. 22, 2013) (recommends award of costs except for portion of protest that was withdrawn and with regard to CLINs for which protester did not compete)

Sizewise Rentals, LLC--Costs, B-407566.2 (July 3, 2013) (recommends award of costs only on clearly meritorious portion of protest)

Marine Design Dynamics, Inc.--Costs, B-407816.2 (July 3, 2013) (recommends award of costs only on clearly meritorious, segregable portion of protest)

JV Derichebourg-BMAR & Associates, LLC--Costs, B-407562.3 (May 3, 2013) (recommends award of costs only on meritorious portion of protest regarding evaluation of proposals, not on segregable procurement integrity allegations)

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp.--Costs, B-401068.12 (Mar. 22, 2013) (recommends reimbursement of costs related only to segregable portion of protest that was clearly meritorious)

URS Federal Services, Inc.--Costs, B-406140.4 (July 17, 2012) (recommends reimbursement of costs related only to portion of protest that was meritorious)

Shaka, Inc. -- Request for Costs, B-405552.2 (May 18, 2012) (protester entitled to costs, including attorneys' fees billed to subcontractor, as well as costs associated with pursuing claim for costs at GAO because agency unreasonably failed to pay original claim for costs)

Glevum Associates, LLC--Costs, B-405860.3 (Apr. 23, 2012) (agency unduly delayed corrective on clearly meritorious protest beyond original agency report date)

Friendship Dental Laboratories, Inc., B-404741.4 (Aug. 24, 2011) (protester entitled of costs of pursuing protest because agency filed agency report disputing protest after agency knew protest ground had merit)

Nationwide IT Services, Inc. - Costs, B-404160.2 (Aug. 9, 2011) (GAO recommends reimbursement of costs only on the one, severable protest ground concerning which the agency undertook corrective action after GAO indicated it would sustain that part of protest during ADR procedures)

Symvionics, Inc.--Costs, B-403230.6 (May 16, 2011) (agency unduly delayed taking corrective action until after outcome determination conference)

Greentree Transportation Co.--Costs, B-403556.4 (May 16, 2011) (agency unduly delayed taking corrective action until after outcome determination conference)

Facility Services Management, Inc.--Costs, B-402575.5 (Sept. 27, 2010) (agency unreasonably delayed taking corrective action until after filing agency report)

Baine Clark Co., Inc.--Costs, B-401172.4 (June 7, 2010) (limits recoverable costs to those related to current protest and not toward possible settlement)

Transportation Security Administration--Costs, B-400340.8 (May 20, 2010) (grants cost-of-living upward adjustment to statutory limit on hourly rate for attorney fees in protest)

Basic Commerce and Industries, Inc.--Costs, B-401702.3 (Feb. 22, 2010) (recommends reimbursement of costs on clearly meritorious protest where agency did not undertake corrective action until after filing agency report)

KAES Enterprises LLC--Protest and Costs, B-402050.4 (Feb. 12, 2010) (recommends award of costs of filing original protest against exclusion from competitive range without any consideration of price, even though protest of subsequent cancellation of solicitation is denied)

ManTech Systems Engineering Corp.; TWD & Associates, Inc., B-401542.6, .7  (Dec. 22, 2009) (agency delayed corrective action until after results of "outcome prediction" ADR were given)

Alsalam Aircraft Co.--Costs, B-401298.3 (Nov. 5, 2009) (awards costs under FMS procurement where agency delayed corrective action on clearly meritorious protest until after filing agency report)

Public Communications Services, Inc., B-400058.4--Costs (June 25, 2009) (recommends reimbursement of costs for pursuing protest plus costs of pursuing claim for reimbursement of costs)

Commercial Design Group, Inc.--Costs, B-400923.3  (June 10, 2009) (grants request for reimbursement of protest costs where agency unreasonably delayed in taking corrective action in face of clearly meritorious protest re insufficiency of resumes submitted by awardee)

Core Tech International Corp.--Costs, B-400047.2 (Mar. 11, 2009) (award of costs)

Pond Security Group Italia JV--Costs, B-400149.2 (Mar. 19, 2009)(grants request for protest costs; award of costs in protest based on solicitation defect is not dependent upon post-protest events in competition)

Celadon Laboratories, Inc., B-298533.2 (Nov. 7, 2008) (proposal preparation and protest costs)

Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs, B-3310600.3, -.4 (June 5, 2008) (protest costs)

Burns and Roe Services Corp., B-310828.2 (Apr. 28, 2008) (protest costs; severable issues)

Sysorex Federal, Inc.--Costs, B-310273.2 (Mar. 28, 2008) (protest costs; agency's delay in taking corrective action)

Eagle Home Medical Corp., B-299821.3 (Feb. 4, 2008) (protest costs)

World Communications Center, Inc. --Costs, B-310398.4 (Jan. 16, 2008) (protest costs)

The Salvation Army Community Corrections Program--Costs, B-208866.3 (August 29, 2007) (protest costs)

Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.3, -299308.3 (July 24, 2007) (protest costs)

T Square Logistics Services Corp., B-297790.6 (June 7, 2007) (protest costs)

EBSCO Publishing, Inc.--Costs, B-298918.4 (May 7, 2007) (protest costs, hourly attorney rates)

University of Dayton Research Inst.--Costs, B-296946.7, Oct. 23, 2006 (reimbursable protest costs)

BAE Technical Services, Inc.--Costs, B-296699.3, Aug. 11, 2006 (protest costs)

T Square Logistics Services Corp.--Costs, B-297790.4, Apr. 26, 2006 (protest costs)

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.--Costs, B-295529.4, Aug. 19, 2005 (protest costs)

Department of State--Costs, B-295352.5, Aug. 18, 2005 (protest costs--attorney hourly rate)


Corrective Action

Castro & Co., LLC., B-415508.4 (Feb. 13, 2018) (agency's limitations on scope of proposal revisions following corrective action unreasonably prohibited protester from revising all aspects of proposal materially impacted by corrective action)

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, B-412125.6 (Nov. 28, 2016) (agency unreasonably restricted revisions in areas of proposals impacted by changes made as a result of corrective action in response to prior successful protest)

Power Connector, Inc., B-404916.2 (Aug. 15, 2011) (after agency amended solicitation as corrective action, it should have permitted offerors to revise all aspects of their proposals, including price)

JER 370 Third Street, LLC, B-402025.2, -402541 (June 1, 2010) (agency lacked rational basis for canceling solicitation)

Ewing Construction Co., B-401887.3, .4 (Apr. 26, 2010) (in taking corrective action in response to prior protest, agency improperly evaluated part of proposal as rendering firm ineligible for award)

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Co., B-299145.5, -.6  (Aug. 30, 2007) (unsatisfactory corrective action by agency)  

Envirosolve LLC, B-294974.4, June 8, 2005 (blanket purchased agreements; failure to take corrective action)


This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me