1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO’s First Sustain of 2024 Emphasizes the Need for Documented Analysis of Offerors’ Proposals Against Solicitation Requirements

GAO’s First Sustain of 2024 Emphasizes the Need for Documented Analysis of Offerors’ Proposals Against Solicitation Requirements

What You Need to Know

  • Key takeaway #1

    GAO’s recent decisions make clear that an agency’s use of non-FAR Part 15 streamlined or simplified procurement procedures does not relieve the government of its obligation to conduct a substantive and documented analysis of whether, and to what extent, offerors’ proposals meet or exceed the solicitation’s requirements.

  • Key takeaway #2

    Cases like the SierTeK-Peerless decision highlight the importance of pursuing supplemental protest grounds. Under GAO’s bid protest regulations, protesters rarely are able to obtain insight into the evaluation of an awardee’s proposal based on their initial protests.  But, often, after reviewing the initial agency report, protest lawyers discover irregularities in the documentation that lead to supplemental protests and the production of documents regarding an awardee’s evaluation.  Such supplemental protests (and the subsequent production of additional documents regarding the procurement) may be essential to identifying the improprieties in a procurement.

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.19.24

In its first published bid protest sustain decision of the new year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlights agencies’ obligation to adequately document a substantive analysis of proposals against the solicitation requirements, even in FAR Part 16.5 procurements.  In SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC, B-422085, B-422085.2, Jan. 2, 2024, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) conducted a task order competition for property management support services among OASIS 8(a) pool 1 contract holders.  The solicitation required TSA to assess the size and scope of offerors’ prior experience as compared to the solicited task order requirements.  SierTeK-Peerless, the unsuccessful offeror, challenged TSA’s award to Strativia, arguing in a supplemental protest that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s prior experience was flawed because TSA failed to reasonably assess the similarity of Strativia’s prior experience. 

GAO sustained the protest and, in doing so, emphasized—not for the first time—that agencies must document a substantive analysis of offerors’ proposals against the solicitation requirements, even when conducting a non-FAR Part 15 procurement.  (Click here for our discussion of another recent sustain decision on the same topic.)  Although TSA’s documentation noted some aspects of the awardee’s prior work bearing on size and scope (such as the numbers of material coordinators, accountable property record items and equipment accounts, vehicles, and facilities), GAO explained that this was insufficient because the technical evaluation team’s report “largely just restate[d] the contents of [the awardee’s] proposal without further analysis or elaboration.”  Rather than simply noting aspects of the prior projects that bore upon size and scope, the agency was required to document its analysis of these elements and explain why and how the prior work was—or was not—similar to the solicited requirements.  Given the absence of that analysis, GAO sustained the protest and recommended that TSA reevaluate proposals in the manner required by the solicitation.

We would like to thank Cherie J. Owen, Consultant, for her contribution to this alert.

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.26

CAS Board Publishes Final Rule Rescinding CAS 404, 408, 409, and 4117

As part of its ongoing effort to conform the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the CAS Board published a final rule rescinding CAS 408 (Accounting for costs of compensated personal absence) and CAS 411 (Accounting for acquisition costs of material).  The CAS Board also rescinded CAS 404 (Capitalization of tangible assets) and CAS 409 (Depreciation of tangible capital assets) but retained certain requirements of CAS 404 and 409, which will be located in new paragraphs of CAS 405 (Accounting for unallowable costs).  Specifically, the CAS Board retained the requirements currently located at CAS 404-50(d)(1), CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4), which the CAS Board explained are necessary to protect the Government’s interests.  Otherwise, the CAS Board determined that the requirements of CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411 overlapped with GAAP such that GAAP “may be applied reasonably as a substitute for CAS to support contract cost and pricing.”...