On January 14, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest filed by Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI) after the Army issued a task order to360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC (Patriot) for Army National Guard military funeral honors and survivor outreach services.
The decision serves as a useful reminder that GAO generally will not second-guess an agency’s judgment about whether an offeror deserved more strengths.
“Here, the protester simply disagreed with the agency as to the merit of its proposed approach, and the appropriate rating or characterization of its proposal. Such disagreement, without more, does not provide a basis for us to conclude an evaluation was unreasonable.”
Background
The Army issued a request for proposals to SRI, Patriot, and other holders of an existing IDIQ, seeking military funeral honor and survivor outreach services for the Army National Guard. The solicitation contemplated a base year plus three option years and evaluated technical proposals across multiple areas, including staffing and management-related elements. Offerors also had to identify which labor categories were covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and provide a cost-element breakout demonstrating that proposed labor rates complied with the applicable wage determination. The Army used a best-value tradeoff with two factors, technical and cost/price, where technical was significantly more important.
After the initial evaluation, the Army awarded the task order to Patriot. SRI challenged that award, prompting the Army to take corrective action. Following corrective action, the evaluators rated both firms “Good” under the technical factor. SRI received two strengths and one weakness where the strengths were tied to the experience and expertise of SRI’s proposed management team and SRI’s transition plan. The weakness stemmed from the evaluators’ reading of SRI’s proposal as suggesting it would communicate performance concerns with government personnel other than the contracting officer, or the contracting officer’s representatives, which the evaluators viewed as inconsistent with the performance work statement’s communication limits. Patriot received one strength and no weaknesses.
The Army again selected Patriot. On price, however, Patriot was notably lower, with an evaluated price of approximately $63.97 million compared to SRI’s $68.63 million. The agency acknowledged that SRI offered certain advantages but concluded that those benefits did not justify paying the price premium.
Why GAO Denied the Protest
The GAO denied the protest on several grounds. First, SRI argued the Army overlooked a large number of strengths and significant strengths, many tied to the depth of experience of SRI’s key personnel. GAO treated this as an attempt to relitigate the agency’s judgment about what meaningfully exceeds the requirement. The key point is that an agency is not required to hand out separate strengths for every positive attribute or for each line that exceeds minimum requirements, especially where the agency reasonably views those points as part of one overall beneficial feature.
Second, SRI challenged the weakness it received for its planned communications with government personnel and argued Patriot proposed an indistinguishable approach but was not assessed a weakness. GAO denied this because the record supported the Army’s distinction between what SRI proposed and what Patriot proposed. In GAO’s view, SRI did not show that it was uniquely penalized for the same feature that both offerors offered. Rather, the agency reasonably concluded SRI proposed prohibited communications with certain government personnel, while Patriot did not.
Third, SRI pointed to job ads on Patriot’s website that listed salaries allegedly below the wage determination, arguing this proved Patriot would not comply with SCLS during performance. GAO rejected that. It emphasized that agencies can generally rely on the offeror’s proposal representations unless there is significant countervailing evidence that should create real doubt. GAO found the job postings did not rise to that level and characterized the argument as speculation about future behavior. GAO also noted the record showed Patriot’s proposed SCLS-covered rates did comply with the wage determination, and the Army reasonably found compliance based on the required rate breakouts.
Fourth, SRI argued that Patriot proposed labor categories that did not correlate to the base IDIQ labor categories and therefore should have been rejected. GAO sided with the Army’s reading of the solicitation and IDIQ terms, explaining that deviations, including proposing labor categories not listed, were allowed so long as they were clearly identified and explained, which the Army found Patriot had done.
Fifth, SRI argued the Army should have found Patriot nonresponsible based on a past administrative compliance agreement tied to older fraud allegations. GAO denied this because the responsibility record showed the contracting officer addressed the standard FAR responsibility considerations and also considered the compliance agreement and concluded Patriot had taken adequate remedial measures and was not precluded from award.
Finally, GAO upheld the best-value tradeoff. With both offerors rated “Good,” the Army documented why SRI’s strengths did not justify paying a premium and selected Patriot as the better value at the lower price.
Practical Takeaways
This decision is a reminder that protests arguing the protester’s proposal was superior and therefore deserved more strengths are usually treated as disagreement with the evaluators’ judgment, not reversible error.
The unequal treatment point is straightforward. To prove it, you need to compare two proposals that were evaluated under the same requirement, involved the same feature, and were judged under the same standard. You also must show that the agency treated them differently, even though the key facts were essentially the same.
On wage compliance, GAO signaled that contractors should bring real, concrete evidence if they want to claim that an awardee cannot or will not comply with SCLS. Public job postings, without more, are unlikely to overcome a proposal that facially demonstrates wage determination compliance through the solicitation-required rate breakouts.
Please contact the author if you have any questions.