United States: February 2017 Protest Roundup

In February 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released notable decisions addressing (1) the effect of the temporary lapse in GAO's civilian task order jurisdiction; (2) discussions, clarifications, and communications; (3) reimbursement of protest costs for an agency's failure to take prompt corrective action; and (4) unduly restrictive agency specifications.  We discuss the most salient points of these protest decisions below.

GAO's Civilian Task Order Jurisdiction

As government contractors are now well aware, GAO's jurisdiction over civilian task order protests expired on September 30, 2016.  See GAO's Jurisdiction Over Protests of Civilian Agency Task Orders Set to Expire September 30, 2016.  As a result of the lapse in jurisdiction, many contractors seeking to challenge civilian task order awards were left without a forum to file their protests.  On December 14, 2016, President Obama reinstated GAO's civilian task order protest jurisdiction through the "GAO Civilian Task and Delivery Order Protest Authority Act of 2016."  Although the new law reestablished GAO as a bid protest forum for civilian task order awards prospectively, questions remained as to whether the law had retroactive effect.  In HP Enterprise Services, LLC—Reconsideration, B-413382.3, Jan. 26, 2017, GAO answered this question in the negative.

On October 21, 2016, HP Enterprise Services (HPES) filed a protest at GAO challenging the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a task order for information technology support services for the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Service Provider.  In a decision issued on November 30, 2016, GAO dismissed the protest because GAO's civilian task order jurisdiction had expired.

HPES subsequently filed a request for reconsideration of GAO's dismissal.  The request alleged that GAO erred in dismissing HPES's protest because GSA was conducting the task order procurement on behalf of a defense agency, which meant GAO had jurisdiction to decide the protest in the first instance.1  HPES also asserted that GAO should reconsider its decision in light of the reinstatement of GAO's civilian task order jurisdiction.  GAO denied each of HPES's requests.

GAO found that, contrary to HPES's assertions, neither Section 801 of the 2008 NDAA nor FAR 17.703 authorized civilian agencies to issue task orders under 10 U.S.C. § 2304c, a statutory provision that is applicable only to defense agencies.  Moreover, GAO found that neither authority gave GAO jurisdiction to consider protests of civilian agency procurements.

GAO also declined to reconsider the protest in light of the new law reinstating GAO's task order jurisdiction.  GAO found that the law was not intended to apply retroactively to protests filed prior to the law's enactment because the law lacked an "express statement" calling for retroactive effect.

Given that GAO's civilian task order jurisdiction is no longer subject to a sunset provision, it is unlikely that offerors will find themselves in a position similar to that of HPES any time soon.  Nevertheless, GAO's decision is an important reminder of the differing requirements for civilian and defense task order procurements.  For example, the 2017 NDAA recently raised GAO's jurisdictional threshold for defense-related task orders from $10 million to $25 million.  GAO's threshold for civilian task order protests, however, remains at $10 million.


In Alltech Engineering Corp., B-414002.2, Feb. 6, 2017, Alltech protested the Army's rejection of its proposal to repair radial flood gates at the Hulah Lake Dam in Copan, Oklahoma.  The Army determined that Alltech's proposal was technically unacceptable because Alltech had failed to provide a narrative explanation, including a phasing plan, crew assembly and work schedule, or safety plan, as required by the solicitation.  In its protest, Alltech conceded that it did not provide the required information, but asserted that the omission was not material and could reasonably be addressed through clarifications.

GAO disagreed with Alltech on both fronts.  First, it held that the omission of the narrative explanation was not merely a clerical error, but rather a material omission.  GAO emphasized that "[c]learly stated RFP technical requirements are considered material to the needs of the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to such material terms is technically unacceptable and may not form the basis for award."  Because Alltech could not demonstrate that the information contemplated by the narrative explanation requirement was unnecessary for the agency to conduct a meaningful evaluation, GAO discounted Alltech's contentions as mere disagreement.

GAO also found that Alltech's omission could not be addressed through clarifications, which GAO defined as "limited exchanges between the agency and offerors that may occur when contract award without discussions is contemplated."  GAO explained that because Alltech's failure to provide a narrative explanation was a material omission, the defect could be cured only through discussions.  GAO also determined that even if the omission were not considered material, an agency is not required to engage in clarifications.  Accordingly, the Army could not have been obligated to seek clarifications regarding Alltech's omission in any event.

The key takeaway from Alltech is that an agency is never required to conduct clarifications with an offeror.  Even if the Army could have resolved Alltech's omission through a clarification question, whether the Army chose to do so was firmly within its discretion. Offerors therefore should not count on GAO requiring agencies to clarify proposal defects.

In addition, GAO's decision in Alltech is notable because it appears to conflate clarifications and communications, which are distinct types of exchanges under FAR 15.306.  Although not significant to the outcome in Alltech, offerors should be mindful that communications and clarifications serve different purposes.  Whereas clarifications are intended to clarify minor or clerical errors, communications may be broader in scope and lead to the establishment of the competitive range.  Neither clarifications nor communications may be used to cure proposal deficiencies.

Reimbursement of Protest Costs for Agency's Failure to Take Prompt Corrective Action

In KWR Contruction, Inc.–Costs, B-412914.2 (Feb. 3, 2017, issued Feb. 7, 2017), GAO recommended that KWR be reimbursed for its costs of filing and pursuing a protest because the Air Force failed to take prompt corrective action in the face of KWR's "clearly meritorious" protest.

The RFP, set aside for firms in the SBA's 8(a) program, sought four vendors to provide general construction services at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona through individual delivery orders over five years.  The contracts themselves were to be design-build, indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  The total estimated construction cost for all the awards under the RFP was not to exceed $45,000,000.  The RFP identified the initial project, which it called the "seed project," and required offerors to submit proposals for the seed project to be eligible for an ID/IQ contract award.  The RFP contemplated a lowest price technically acceptable source selection process and required each firm to submit a detailed construction schedule for the entirety of the 480-day project; it also set a page limit of 28-pages total.

Six offerors submitted bids.  Though it was the lowest priced offeror, KWR was eliminated as one of two firms that the agency deemed technically unacceptable.  The Air Force awarded contracts to the four offerors deemed technically acceptable.  KWR challenged the agency's determination that it was not technically acceptable.  When the Air Force filed its report and included portions of the awardees' proposals that addressed the scheduling requirement, it became clear that one of the awardees, "Vendor C," had submitted a schedule spanning a mere five week period.  Because of the agency's redactions it was not clear, however, whether this schedule was complete or whether Vendor C had submitted addition schedule information.

In its comments, KWR argued that the agency had engaged in unequal treatment when evaluating the schedules.  In particular, it took issue with Vendor C's five week schedule.  It pointed out that, if the agency's report included Vendor C's entire submission, the five week schedule did not meet the agency's requirements for a detailed schedule to address the entire 480-day project.  If, on the other hand, the five week portion (which took up four pages) was just an excerpt, Vendor C's proposal must have exceeded the agency's stringent page limitations.  The agency responded that it had included Vendor C's entire schedule and asserted that Vendor C did not need to finish the schedule to meet the standard of acceptability because "its list of tasks and their duration rendered it acceptable."  KWR submitted a response pointing out numerous issues with Vendor C's submitted schedule and GAO ultimately convened a teleconference to discuss the agency's evaluation of project schedules.

Only after this teleconference, did the agency decide to take corrective action.  KWR then filed for reimbursement of its protest costs, maintaining that its protest allegations were clearly meritorious and the Air Force had delayed in taking corrective action.  The Air Force responded that the protest was not clearly meritorious because additional record development followed the filing of KWR's comments and it did not unduly delay corrective action because KWR raised its allegations with specificity only in its comments on the agency report.

GAO sided with KWR entirely.  It reiterated that it does not recommend reimbursement of costs in every case in which an agency takes corrective action, but only where an agency unduly delays in the face of a clearly meritorious protest "thereby causing the protester to expend unnecessary time and resources to make further use of the protest process to obtain relief."  It found that the Air Force had done so here.  KWR's protest was meritorious because reasonable inquiry by the Air Force into the KWR's allegations revealed facts–specifically Vendor C's defective schedule–that would have shown the absence of a defensible legal position.  It rejected the Air Force's argument that because GAO had to conduct further record development, KWR's allegations were not clearly meritoriousGAO had had to conduct further development to determine whether the schedule was complete because of the Air Force's own extensive redactions.  GAO also rejected the agency's claim that the Air Force had taken prompt corrective action.  GAO determined that KWR had raised its clearly meritorious allegation regarding Vendor C's schedule in its comments and the Air Force, rather than taking corrective action at that point, had responded to KWR's comments, by subjecting KWR "to the additional expense of replying to the agency's response."

This decision is a good reminder that costs are recoverable when an agency fails to take prompt corrective action in the face of protest allegations with clear merit.  It also serves as a reminder that, while it is GAO's "general rule" that where further record development is necessary, GAO is not likely to consider the protest "clearly meritorious," there are exceptions to the rule.

Unduly Restrictive Technical Specifications

In Pitney Bowes, Inc., B-413876.2 (Feb. 13, 2017, issued Feb. 28, 2017), GAO determined that the IRS had not adequately explained why certain technical specifications in its RFQ for the procurement of mail inserter/folder machines were necessary, and sustained a Pitney's protest on the ground that the IRS's specifications were unduly restrictive of competition.

The RFQ was issued in November 2016 via GSA's e-Buy system and contemplated award of a fixed price contract on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  It sought quotations for four machines to be used for document processing and mailing at the IRS's National Distribution Center in Bloomington, IL.  The distribution center an IRS facility that processes and mails a high volume of letters, including Affordable Care Act compliance and earned income tax credit letters.  The statement of work (SOW) included certain specifications with which Pitney took issue, including requirements for machines that had (1) a "high capacity sheet feeder with a capacity of up to 1,000 per feeder with the capability of loading on the fly" and (2) "[o]ne envelope feeder to handle all types of envelopes from letters to flats."  Pitney argued that the requirements unduly restricted competition because they were more stringent than the agency's needs warranted and amounted to a de facto sole source requirement.

As to the first issue–"load-on-the-fly capability"–Pitney maintained that the IRS did not need it because Pitney could ensure continuous operation by using two high capacity sheet feeders, each holding 1,000 sheets, rather than a single machine with load-on-the-fly capability.  The IRS had said this capability was required "to minimize production time by allowing the equipment to be loaded while in operation."  With two machines, however, employees could insert any additional sheets they needed to add to the second machine while the first was operating.  This would allow items to be pulled from one feeder while the other feeder is filled.  Moreover, Pitney's solution had the added benefit of allowing one machine to continue to operate in the event of a problem or breakdown of the other machine.  GAO found this argument compelling and determined that the IRS had not established that load-on-the-fly capability was necessary.

GAO also found that the IRS had not established that it needed an envelope feeder that could handle all types of envelopes from letters to flats.  Pitney argued that its equipment could handle a wide range of the most common types and sizes of envelopes and that it would take just 30 seconds to remove a feeder and replace it with a new one that could accommodate a more unusual size.  The IRS did not explain why it needed a feeder that could handle sizes and types that were not standard.  It also failed to provide information about whether and how often insertion of non-standard feeders would even be necessary.  GAO therefore found that the agency had not provided a reasonable justification for requiring the machines to come equipped with a single feeder that could handle all types of envelopes.

GAO recommended that IRS make a documented determination of its needs and revise its RFQ to include specifications necessary to meet those needs.  It also gave Pitney its protest costs, including attorneys' fees.

The takeaway here is that companies looking to respond to RFQs should think critically about whether their products  could meet requirements even if they do not meet stated agency specifications and consider protesting if the stated specifications seem unnecessarily stringent or restrictive.


1 The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) repealed the sunset provision for DoD task orders, which meant that GAO's jurisdiction of defense-related task orders did not expire on September 30, 2016.

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
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.