GAO Rejects Use of Highest-Technically Rated Reasonably-Priced Award Criteria for FSS Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.23.20
In Noble Supply & Logistics, Inc., GAO sustained a pre-award protest challenging a General Services Administration request for quotations under FSS No. 51V, hardware store supplies and ancillary services. The RFQ contemplated four separate single-award blanket purchase agreements for use by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines respectively, and provided that award would be made to the vendor(s) submitting the highest technically rated quotations with fair and reasonable prices. The protester challenged this methodology, alleging that it failed to meaningfully consider price as required by FAR Part 8.
GAO sustained the protest. In so doing, GAO distinguished a prior decision in which it had sanctioned the use of Highest-Technically Rated Reasonably-Priced (HTRRP) award criteria in a FAR Part 15, multiple award negotiated procurement. GAO observed that unlike FAR Part 15, which establishes a broad continuum for the assessment of best value, FAR Part 8 requires that an order under the FSS result in the “lowest overall cost alternative” to meet the Government’s needs. According to GAO, an isolated price reasonableness determination on prices already determined reasonable by GSA at the time the schedule contracts initially were awarded failed to meaningfully consider price in the instant procurement, in contravention of applicable procurement laws and regulations. GAO also found troubling the agency’s intent to issue single-award BPAs, rather than the multiple-award IDIQ’s used in GAO’s earlier decision on this issue, because this scheme precluded the possibility of price competition at the order level.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
