The protester accidentally listed the wrong labor category level—“A” instead of “B”—in its pricing workbook, making its quoted rates appear higher than its GSA schedule rates and triggering automatic disqualification. The protester argued the agency should have sought clarification before eliminating it over what amounted to a one-letter typo. GAO denied the protest. When a solicitation merely permits clarifications rather than requiring them, an agency’s decision to skip them is not unreasonable—even when the mistake looks small.
Soft Tech Consulting, Inc., GAO, B-424323 (May 15, 2026)
- Background - DHS’s immigration services agency issued a request for quotations for IT security operations services, run under Federal Supply Schedule procedures. Vendors first had to submit a pricing workbook. Any vendor whose quoted rates exceeded its own GSA schedule rates would be automatically disqualified. The protester submitted its workbook but made a critical mistake—it listed its “project manager, level A” as the corresponding labor category while entering the higher level B rate. The agency compared the quoted rate to the level A schedule ceiling, found it exceeded that cap, and disqualified the protester.
- No Clarifications Required. The protester argued that the fix was trivially simple—change one letter—and that the agency abused its discretion by failing to seek clarification before pulling the plug. GAO did not decide whether this error was minor enough to fix through clarifications. It didn’t need to. Under FAR subpart 8.4—the rules that govern Federal Supply Schedule procurements—agencies are simply not required to seek clarifications. The agency had no legal obligation to reach out, regardless of how small the mistake looked.
- “May” Does Not Mean “Must.” The protester pointed to language in the solicitation stating that the agency “may engage in clarifications to better understand aspects of the quotation.” It argued that this provision, combined with the obvious nature of the mistake, effectively required the agency to act. GAO disagreed. A solicitation that gives an agency discretion to seek clarifications does not create a duty to do so.
- Court Decisions Cut No Ice at GAO. The protester cited two Court of Federal Claims decisions where courts found agencies abused their discretion by disqualifying offerors for minor spreadsheet errors without seeking clarifications. GAO was unpersuaded. First, those cases involved different procurement procedures—not FAR subpart 8.4—and the errors there were obvious on the face of the proposals. Here, there was no way for the agency to know the protester intended to quote a different labor category level; the workbook simply showed rates that exceeded the listed category’s ceiling. Second, and more broadly, GAO reiterated its consistent position that Court of Federal Claims decisions are not binding on GAO.
The protester is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Spiro, Esq., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by Richard W. Postma, Esq., and Jessica Easton, Esq., of the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., participated in the decision.
Soft tech GAO