United States: Year In Review: Bid Protests

Last Updated: December 30 2015
Article by Sandeep N. Nandivada and Pablo A. Nichols

With the calendar year coming to an end, it is an opportune time to look back at bid protest activity at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Court of Federal Claims to identify which arguments have borne the most fruit.  To assist in this regard, GAO recently released its Bid Protest Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2015.  According to GAO, during Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, GAO received 2,496 new bid protests and closed 2,522 pending bid protests.1  FY 2015 Annual Report at 1.  GAO sustained 12 percent of bid protests resolved on the merits, which represents the lowest sustain rate in the past five fiscal years.2  Id. at 5.  However, FY 2015 had the highest bid protest "effectiveness rate"—defined as the percentage of protests in which the protester obtains some sort of relief, either from voluntary agency corrective action or a sustained bid protest—over that same period.3  Id.

GAO also identified the most prevalent grounds for successful bid protests for FY 2015 as:  (1) unreasonable cost or price evaluations; (2) unreasonable past performance evaluations; (3) unreasonable technical evaluations; (4) failure to follow evaluation criteria; and (5) inadequate documentation of the record.  Id. at 1-2.  Additionally, protesters found success challenging agency solicitations based on ambiguities, unduly restrictive provisions, and procedural defects.

This blog post examines some of the more notable bid protest success stories of 2015 at both GAO and the Court of Federal Claims.

I. Notable Challenges to Agency Evaluations

Government contractors found success challenging agency evaluations on a number of fronts in FY 2015.  Successful bid protests included challenges to agency price or cost realism analyses, unreasonable technical evaluations, unreasonable past performance evaluations, and deviations from solicitation evaluation criteria.4

A. Price/Cost Realism Evaluation

In General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., B-11771 et al., 2015 Wl 6501467 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 20, 2015), GAO sustained General Dynamic's challenge to the Navy's cost realism analysis because the Navy unreasonably concluded that General Dynamics had proposed uncompensated overtime hours.  The Navy's conclusion was based on a summary spreadsheet that was not included in the cost proposal, but rather was attached as an

Appendix solely to substantiate the realism of proposed labor rates.  GAO found that the agency misinterpreted the importance of this spreadsheet, which resulted in an improper upward adjustment to General Dynamic's cost proposal.  See also CFS-KBR Marianas Support Servs., LLC; Fluor Fed. Solutions LLC, B-410486 et al., 2015 WL 300733 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 2, 2015) (sustaining protest where Navy's cost realism evaluation mechanically applied government estimate without considering each offeror's unique technical approach); Lilly Timber Servs., B-411435.2, 2015 WL 4647961 (Comp. Gen. Aug. 5, 2015) (sustaining protest where agency improperly conducted price realism analysis where solicitation stated only that prices would be evaluated for "reasonableness").

Similarly, in KWR Constr., Inc. v. United States, No. 15-156C, 2015 WL 7567513 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 25, 2015), the Court of Federal Claims granted KWR's motion for judgment on the administrative record after concluding that the Air Force's price realism analysis was inconsistent with solicitation requirements.  The Court found that the Air Force expressly committed in the solicitation to assessing the price realism of individual line items, rather than total proposed prices, and that the Air Force failed to follow that methodology when evaluating the offerors' proposals.  Further, the Court rejected the Air Force's determination that KWR's price proposals indicated a clear lack of understanding of project requirements, finding that the determination was contradicted by the agency's express findings in the record.

B. Technical Evaluation

In Celta Services, Inc., B-411835 et al., 2015 WL 7731719 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 2, 2015), GAO sustained a protest based on the Department of Agriculture's flawed technical evaluation.  Specifically, GAO found that although the agency recognized that Celta had resolved all identified weaknesses prior to submitting its final proposal, the Source Selection Authority referenced and relied upon those weaknesses when making the source selection decision.  Additionally, GAO found that the agency did not reasonably and consistently assign point scores among the offerors, which resulted in an unreliable award decision.  See also Trandes Corp., B-411742 et al., 2015 WL 6445625 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 13, 2015) (sustaining task order protest where Navy waived mandatory experience requirements only for awardee's key personnel).

In Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1069C, 2015 WL 7568200 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 11, 2015), the Court similarly found that the General Services Administration (GSA) had conducted a flawed technical evaluation.  The Court concluded that GSA failed to evaluate offers in accordance with solicitation criteria when it accepted the awardee's proposal to offer space larger than the 625,000 square feet specified in the solicitation.  The Court explained that the maximum rentable square feet parameter was a material term of the procurement because it affected both the quantity of space delivered and overall price.  Accordingly, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment of the administrative record.

C. Past Performance Evaluation

In Logistics Management Int'l, Inc.; Al Raha Group for Technical Services, Inc.; Dalma Tech Co., B-411015.4 et al., 2015 WL 7450343 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 20, 2015), GAO sustained challenges to the Air Force's evaluation of both the awardee's and the protester's past performance, finding that the agency deviated from the solicitation criteria, failed to adequately document its evaluation, and engaged in disparate treatment.  When evaluating the awardee's past performance, the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's indefinite delivery, indefinite quality (IDIQ) contracts rather than the individual orders issued against those contracts, as required by the solicitation.  The agency also improperly relied on the general scopes of work for the IDIQ contracts in concluding that all orders issued under the contracts were "follow-on" orders eligible for consideration under the solicitation.  Additionally, GAO found that the Air Force engaged in disparate treatment with respect to Al Raha, one of the protesters before GAO, when it made multiple attempts to obtain past performance information regarding the awardee, but refused to consider potentially mitigating information concerning the protester.  See also DKW Commc'ns, Inc., B-411182 et al., 2015 WL 3759366 (Comp. Gen. June 9, 2015) (sustaining protest where agency unreasonably failed to consider a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System report deemed "close at hand").

II. Notable Challenges to Agency Solicitations

Although challenges to agency solicitations typically arise in the pre-award context,5 in FY 2015, protesters also found success challenging agency solicitations in the post-award context based on latent ambiguities.6  Moreover, protesters had success challenging unduly restrictive solicitation requirements for which agencies could not demonstrate an actual need.

A. Latent Solicitation Ambiguities

In Coastal International Security, Inc., B-411756 et al., 2015 WL 7348949 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 19, 2015), GAO sustained a protest where a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporated into the solicitation was latently ambiguous with respect to the mandatory wage rates applicable to offerors' staff.  Coastal, as the incumbent contractor, knew the applicable prevailing wage rate and thus interpreted the CBA in a manner consistent with that knowledge.  The awardee, however, interpreted the wage rate to allow a lower wage than that bid by Coastal, and the agency supported this interpretation.  GAO determined that the CBA was latently ambiguous because both interpretations were reasonable, and the protester had no reason to be aware of the ambiguity prior to award.  Accordingly, because the ambiguity prevented the offerors from competing intelligently and on a relatively equal basis, GAO sustained the protest.

Similarly, in Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 603 (2015), the Court of Federal Claims granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record where the solicitation contained a latent defect regarding entity registration requirements.  The Court found that the solicitation's language was facially plausible and was not contradicted by other portions of the solicitation.  Further, the Court noted the Air Force's failure to provide correct answers in response to requests for clarification from potential offerors, suggesting that the Air Force also did not recognize the defective language.  In finding that the defect was latent and granting the plaintiff's motion, the Court also declined to impose a requirement on the protester to assume the Air Force's information was erroneous and to independently verify government information.

B. Unduly Restrictive Solicitation Requirements

In Smith and Nephew, Inc., B-410453, 2015 WL 1275375 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 2, 2015), GAO sustained a protest where the solicitation contained an unduly restrictive technical requirement regarding fluid handling capacity for which there was no actual agency need.  In sustaining the protest, GAO rejected the agency's argument that the fluid handling capacity requirement reflected an agency "goal" to obtain maximum absorbency, finding that the agency had entirely failed to explain how the challenged specification was reasonably necessary to meet an actual agency need.  Further, GAO noted that the agency acknowledged that the requirement was not supported by market research or any industry standard and, in fact, was contradicted by vendor product data that indicated the requirement was unnecessarily demanding.

In American Safety Council, Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 426 (2015), the Court of Federal Claims granted in part the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record where the agency's solicitation contained unduly restrictive intellectual property data rights clauses.  The Court found that the agency included a data rights clause concerning licensing for a purpose independent of the solicitation, which the agency had conceded.  The Court further found that the agency indiscriminately incorporated technical data clauses without any effort to tailor the clauses to the agency's reasonable needs.

III. Conclusion

Although the above decisions are a subsection of the total universe of protests filed in 2015, they reflect both GAO's and the Court's willingness to ensure that agencies comply with their legal obligations and do not abuse their discretion when conducting procurements.  Contractors should continue to monitor successful bid protests to stay abreast of the types of arguments that recently have gained traction before GAO and the Court.


1. Of the 2,522 protests closed, 335 concerned protests of task order awards within GAO's jurisdiction.  Id.; 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e) (granting GAO jurisdiction to review protests of task order awards in excess of $10 million).

2. FY 2011 had a sustain rate of 16 percent, FY 2012 had a sustain rate of 18.6 percent, FY 2013 had a sustain rate of 17 percent, and FY 2014 had a sustain rate of 13 percent.  Id.

3. Specifically, 45 percent of bid protests considered on their merits resulted in some form of relief for the protester, up from 43 percent in FY 2014 and 2013 and 42 percent in FY 2012 and 2011.  Id. at 5.

4. Additionally, protesters found success challenging agency evaluations that reflected disparate treatment among offerors.  See e.g., Cubic Applications, Inc., B-411305  et al., 2015 WL 4480675 (Comp. Gen. July 9, 2015) (sustaining protest where agency evaluated only protester's optional labor labors as exceptionally low, despite awardee's even lower optional labor rates); International Waste Industries, B-411338, 2015 WL 4265303 (Comp. Gen. July 7, 2015) (sustaining protest where Air Force engaged in discussions only with awardee).

5. For example, in Global Technical Systems, B-411230.2, 2015 WL 7007806 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 9, 2015), the protester challenged a Navy solicitation that included a requirement for "engineering services," but lacked information necessary for offerors to propose acceptable labor rates.  In sustaining the protest, GAO found that the solicitation, which stated only that engineering services could include such tasks as "engineering analysis, conducting studies 'and/or' supporting engineering changes," was vague and contained no description of the type of work offerors would actually perform.  As a result, the agency prevented offerors from competing intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.

6. Protestors also successfully challenged agency solicitations based on procedural grounds.  Latvian Connection, LLC, B-411489, 2015 WL 4748107 (Comp. Gen. Aug. 11, 2015) (sustaining protest where protestor did not have constructive notice of solicitation amendment and did not learn of amendment until two business days before closing date for proposals); Eastern Forestry, B-411848, 2015 WL 7007802 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 9, 2015) (sustaining protest where solicitation amendment was posted on the evening before bid opening, leaving protester insufficient time to file); AECOM Tech. Servs., B-411862, 2015 WL 7171488 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 12, 2015) (sustaining protest where agency rejected proposal because it was submitted to incorrect location despite timely submission, agency awareness of submission, and no prejudice to competitors).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Sandeep N. Nandivada
Pablo A. Nichols
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions