Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Why Didn’t this Protester’s Status as a Small Business Satisfy the Solicitation’s Small Business Participation Requirement? • Contractor Tried to Salvage a Dismissed Claim By Changing Its Legal Theory. The COFC Wasn’t Feeling It. • Clarified Standard for Challenging CICA Stay Overrides • Fixed-Price Contracts EO: What It Means for Government Contractors • National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to Open Programs to More Vendors

Why Didn’t this Protester’s Status as a Small Business Satisfy the Solicitation’s Small Business Participation Requirement?

The protester contended that the agency unreasonably assigned weaknesses to its small business participation proposal. The protester reasoned that it was a small business, so the agency should have considered its own self-performance in assessing small business participation. GAO rejected the argument, noting that the protester had not satisfied a solicitation requirement to identify participation levels of small businesses in each socio-economic category.

Hasen Global, LLC, GAO, B-424168.2; B-424168.3

  • Background - The Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract for sustainment, restoration, and modernization services for a tactical equipment maintenance facility.  The agency selected the awardee's $33.6 million proposal over the protester's lower-priced $28 million proposal, citing the awardee's superior past performance. After receiving its debriefing, the protester filed this protest challenging the evaluation and the resulting source selection decision.
  • Small Business Weaknesses - The protester argued the agency improperly assigned two weaknesses under the small business participation factor, claiming the agency ignored its self-performance as a small business. GAO disagreed. While the agency considered the protester's small-business self-certification, the solicitation expressly required offerors to identify their participation levels for each socio-economic category. The protester left those sections blank. GAO also rejected the protester's claim that the second weakness was based on a non-existent SBA certification requirement, finding instead that the weakness stemmed from a failure to provide a certification that the protester would satisfy any of the other socio-economic categories.
  • Awardee's Rating Change - The protester argued the source selection authority irrationally upgraded the awardee's small business rating from marginal to acceptable despite four assessed weaknesses. GAO denied this ground, noting that an SSA has broad discretion to disagree with lower-level evaluators provided the decision is reasonable and documented. The SSA didn't reject the underlying findings—he simply concluded they better fit the "acceptable" definition. Unlike the protester, the awardee actually identified the type and complexity of work for each socio-economic category, provided percentages, and documented good-faith outreach efforts to small business subcontractors.
  • Calendar vs. Working Days - The protester argued its use of working days instead of calendar days was a "typographical, immaterial error" that shouldn't have warranted a weakness. GAO denied this challenge. The solicitation expressly required calendar days, and the discrepancy mattered: the protester's stated 352-day duration didn't match the 516 calendar days between its proposed start and finish dates. This inconsistency prevented the agency from determining whether the protester would meet the period-of-performance requirements—a legitimate basis for a weakness.
  • Best-Value Tradeoff - The protester argued that the agency improperly elevated past performance to the same level as price and mischaracterized the price difference as "modest." GAO found the tradeoff unobjectionable. Source selection officials have broad discretion in tradeoff decisions, governed only by tests of rationality and consistency with stated criteria. The agency properly identified past performance as the most important non-price factor, documented the awardee's significant advantage (substantial confidence vs. satisfactory confidence), and explained why the technical superiority justified the price premium.

The protester is represented by Lawrence M. Prosen, Eric Leonard, Matthew Howell, and Kristina Zaslavskaya of Cozen O'Connor. The intervenor, Cerris Builders, Inc., is represented by Patrick K. Burns and Meredith L. Thielbahr of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. The government is represented by Matthew R. Keiser, N. Harry Herrick, Deborah L. Collins, and Elliott A. Stanley of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Heather Weiner 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.