Share:
The protester challenged a solicitation requirement that proposals include a customer memorandum signed by two different people—both a customer and an end-user. The protester argued this requirement was unduly restrictive and shouldn’t be mandatory since it didn’t affect price, quality, quantity, or delivery. GAO disagreed on both counts.
Compotech, Inc., B-423368
- Background – The Air Force issued a phase II SBIR solicitation seeking innovative dual-purpose technologies to meet Air Force stakeholder needs. The solicitation required offerors to submit a customer memorandum signed by both a unique customer (who would manage future procurement) and a unique end-user (who would operationally use the solution). The solicitation stated that proposals without properly signed customer memorandums would not be considered for award. The protester filed its protest on the proposal due date, arguing the two-signature requirement was overly restrictive and shouldn’t be mandatory.
- Standing – GAO found the protester lacked standing to challenge the requirement as unduly restrictive. The protester admitted it could have met the requirement but had timing issues getting the signatures. After filing its protest, the protester actually submitted a properly signed customer memorandum with both required signatures. GAO explained that a protester who can meet a challenged requirement lacks standing because they’re essentially protesting on behalf of other potential suppliers who might be affected by the allegedly restrictive requirement.
- Material Requirement – The protester argued the signature requirement wasn’t material because it didn’t concern price, quantity, quality, or delivery terms. GAO rejected this narrow view. Agencies can establish mandatory requirements that are reasonably necessary to meet their needs. Here, the customer memorandum was crucial for evaluating two key criteria: defense need and commercialization potential. The end-user’s signature validated the defense need, while the customer’s signature evidenced commercialization potential. These signatures documented formal commitments from agency officials with influence over operational needs, requirements, and funding—safeguarding both the Air Force’s and awardee’s interests in developing viable technology solutions.
The protester is represented by Jason A. Blindauer of Blindauer Law, PLLC. The government is represented by Hector Rivera-Hernandez and Erika Whelan Retta of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
Share:
