The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation process and claimed the agency failed to amend the solicitation after changes to the requirements. Specifically, it maintained that the agency's decision to eliminate certain labor categories constituted a material change, necessitating an amendment. However, GAO determined that it lacked jurisdiction. The actual awarded task order's value was below the $35 million jurisdictional threshold, even if the proposed price exceeded $35 million.
Integral Federal, Inc., GAO, B-423672
- Background - The agency issued a request for proposals on April 16, 2025, for research and development services via the Army's RS3 contract. The protester and the awardee submitted proposals, and the task order was awarded to the awardee for $28,551,706. The protester subsequently filed a protest, arguing the agency failed to amend the RFP, thus disputing the evaluation process that led to the award.
- Jurisdictional Threshold - GAO has jurisdiction to hear a protest arising from a defense agency's issued task order if either (1) the protester alleges the order increases in scope, period, or maximum value of the IDIQ it was issued under, or (2) the order is valued in excess of $35M. 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f)(1).
- The protester argued that if the task order were considered based on the proposed price of the awardee, which exceeded $35 million, GAO would have jurisdiction. GAO countered that the jurisdictional threshold relates to the actual awarded amount, which was below $35 million. Thus it dismissed the protest.
- Misinterpretation of FAR - The protester asserted that the agency’s awarding process violated FAR section 15.206(a) by failing to amend the solicitation after eliminating certain labor categories. This regulation mandates that agencies amend solicitations when requirements change materially. GAO, however, emphasized that whether a violation occurred does not affect the jurisdictional determination. The agency's awarded amount dictates jurisdiction, and since this amount is below the threshold, GAO dismissed the protest.
The protester is represented by Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Anuj Vohra, Esq. of Crowell & Moring LLP. The awardee, The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC, is represented by Shane Riley, Esq. The government is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., participated in the decision.