Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Should I Appeal My Terminated Grants in District Court or the Court of Federal Claims? • Contractors Continue to Challenge Project Labor Agreements on Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects • GSA Leasing: Practice Tips and Pitfalls for Leasing Space to the Nation’s Largest Tenant • Senate Takes First Step Toward Ending the Government Shutdown • Unveiling Acquisition Overhaul, Hegseth Tells Industry to Get with the Program

Published on September 26, 2025 • Law

Protester Claimed Significant Change in Requirements Mandated a New Solicitation. GAO Didn’t Agree.

The protester contended that the agency erred by not cancelling a solicitation after a significant change in its requirements. It argued that the change necessitated a new market analysis and a potential small business set-aside. The failure to cancel allegedly violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) by not allowing for full and open competition. GAO disagreed and affirmed that the agency adhered to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures and did not break any legal rules.

Development InfoStructure, LLC--d/b/a Devis, GAO, B-422776.2

Background - The agency issued an RFQ for management and operations support of its refugee processing centers. After significant changes in scope reduced requirements by 55%, the protester challenged the agency’s decision to keep the solicitation unrestricted rather than re-evaluate it for a small business set-aside. The protest was filed after the agency awarded the task order to the awardee, Credence Management Solutions.
Unrestricted Procurement Compliance - The protester argued that the agency’s amendment to the RFQ should have resulted in cancellation and re-solicitation, given its reduced requirements. However, GAO found that the agency followed proper FSS procedures. It concluded that it was not obligated to reopen the competition since the amendment sufficiently complied with the standard of full and open competition under the relevant procurement laws.
Set-Aside Discretion - The protester also contended that the agency failed to conduct additional market research to support a new small business set-aside analysis after altering the requirement. The GAO highlighted that FSS procurements grant agencies discretion regarding set-asides and that the agency's previous market analysis sufficed. Consequently, the agency’s decision to maintain an unrestricted procurement was within its legal rights and properly justified.

The protester is represented by Lyle F. Hedgecock, Lauren S. Fleming, and Cash W. Carter of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The intervenor, Credence Management Solutions, LLC, is represented by Samuel S. Finnerty, Katherine B. Burrows, Abigail H. Finan, and Kristine E. Cralle of Piliero Mazza, PLLC. The government is represented by Tudo N. Pham of the Department of State. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.