Agency Took Corrective Action After Disclosing Awardee’s Price. Should the Corrective Action Have Prohibited Price Revisions?

Thomas M Perkins | Shutterstock

Following an award and a protest, the agency took corrective action and allowed offerors to revise all portions or their proposals. The initial awardee protested, alleging the corrective action should have limited revisions to non-price proposals because its price had been disclosed to other offerors. As part of the corrective action, however, the agency had amended the solicitation. When an agency permits revisions in response to an amendment, offerors are allowed to change any part of their proposals. This rule does not change simply because a previous awardee’s price has been disclosed.

Pacific Shipyards International, LLC, GAO B-420587, B-420587.4


The Navy awarded a ship maintenance contract to Pacific Shipyards International. The Navy gave a debriefing to an unsuccessul offeror, Vigor Marine, and as part of that debriefing disclosed Pacific’s price.

Following the debriefing, Vigor filed a protest. In response to the protest, the agency decided to take corrective action to reexamine non-price factors. But as part of the corrective action the Navy issued an amendment that made significant changes to the solicitation. In light of the amendment, the Navy determined that offerors could now amend their price proposals. Pacific filed a protest objecting to the decision to allow revisions to price proposals.


Pacific argued the corrective action should have been limited to the revision of non-price proposals. GAO, however, reasoned that where an agency amends a solicitation and permits revisions, offerors should be permitted to revise any aspect of their proposal. Unrestricted amendments are not improper simply because the awardee’s price has been discloses/

Pacific is represented by Anthony H. Anikeeff and Yongjoo Kwon of Williams Mullen. The intervenor, Vigor, is represented by Mark G, Jackson and Stowell B. Holcomb of Jackson Holcomb LLP. The agency is  represented by Tami Yamado of the Navy. GAO attorneys David A. Edelstein and Alexander O. Levine participated in the preparation of the decision.

GAO - Pacific Shipyards International