GSA’s Reevaluation Sparks Bid Protest: Clarity or Chaos?

The protester argued that the government’s rationale for reevaluation and resolicitation lacked sufficient justification. The COFC determined that while the government’s initial corrective action was reasonable, its ultimate decision to cancel the contract award needed more explanation. Thus, it remanded the case for further clarity.

CAN Softtech, Inc. v. The United States, COFC No. 24-1009

• Background – The General Services Administration (GSA) issued a solicitation for IT support services for the Air Force. It awarded a contract to the protester, CAN Softtech, Inc. (CSI). The incumbent contractor, Octo Metric, protested the award. GSA suspended performance of CSI’s contract and initiated corrective action. CSI contended that GSA’s reasons for reevaluation and eventual cancellation were arbitrary and capricious as they lacked a clear basis.
• Reevaluation Explanations – The protester argued that GSA had not adequately explained its corrective action to reevaluate the proposals. The relevant rule states that an agency’s action must be rational and based on available data. The court found GSA’s decision to reevaluate quotes was supported by Octo Metric’s protest. This protest addressed alleged evaluation errors that justified the need for reconsideration. Hence, COFC found the reevaluation justified.
• Cancellation Explanations – The protester contended that GSA’s rationale for canceling the contract as outdated and ambiguous was insufficient. The court ruled that the reasons outlined in the CO’s memorandum were vague and did not provide a rational connection between their findings and the cancellation decision. The court agreed and remanded the case to GSA for a clearer explanation of the cancellation. The agency’s Determinations and Findings (D&F) Memo claiming “Outdated PWS and Certification Ambiguities” and “Ambiguities found within the Request for Quote” were not sufficient justifications for the cancellation.
• Sole-Source Extension Mootness – The protester also challenged GSA’s sole-source extension of the incumbent’s contract, arguing it violated the law. However, since GSA later awarded a new task order to the incumbent, the court deemed this challenge moot. The ruling indicated that the protester lacked standing regarding this issue as it was not an eligible bidder for the new task order.