United States: October 2017 Bid Protest Roundup

This month's bid protest roundup discusses five decisions covering corrective action, an agency's evaluation discretion, the "late-is-late" rule, intervening at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), and Small Business Administration (SBA) status protests.  These cases serve as important reminders for protesters and awardees, and identify a few issues that continue to change at the various protest fora.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-414822.5

Booz Allen protested a General Services Administration (GSA) task order award to Raytheon asserting unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) and a flawed technical evaluation.  Following outcome prediction, during which the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicated it would likely sustain the protest, GSA took voluntary corrective action.  GSA's notice of corrective action noted the potential issues concerning OCIs and its evaluation, but, as is customary in such notices, GSA did not bind itself to any particular course of action.  The protester objected to the scope of the corrective action, but GAO dismissed the protest as academic, noting the protester's right to protest again if it is "dissatisfied with the results of the agency's corrective action."

The protester filed another protest the next business day following GAO's dismissal, arguing that GSA's proposed corrective action can be interpreted as allowing the agency to ignore the OCI and evaluation flaws identified in its initial protest.  GAO disagreed and dismissed the follow-on protest because: (i) GAO does not consider unsupported allegations of bad faith against government officials and (ii) the protest is in anticipation of adverse agency action and is therefore premature.

This case highlights the sometimes untenable position protesters find themselves in following an agency's decision to take corrective action.  Often concerned with the breadth of discretion and vagueness of the scope of an agency's announced corrective action, the protester must assess whether, by not protesting immediately, it is waiving its opportunity to object to the scope of corrective action.  By immediately protesting, however, the protester also risks being summarily dismissed as premature.  Oftentimes, as may have been the case with Booz Allen, the risks of being dismissed as untimely in a protest of a re-award to Raytheon outweighed the risks of its pre-award protest being dismissed as premature.  These types of protective protests are, unfortunately, sometimes necessary to ensure the protester's right to protest is preserved until after the agency completes its corrective action.

McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., B-414797

Protesters frustrated by an agency's overly mechanical or finicky evaluation often feel they have been treated unfairly and that the agency has traded substance for form.  Such protesters are usually disappointed at GAO because GAO often rejects arguments that agencies' evaluations were based on minor or clerical errors in the protesters' proposals.  GAO has held for time immemorial that it is the offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written and compliant proposal.  GAO's decision in McCann-Erickson is a departure from this precedent.

In this case, the Army eliminated McCann's proposal from phase one of the two phase competition for various supposed noncompliances with the RFP.  At least two of the Army's reasons were erroneous, but the third noncompliance finding was true:  McCann had submitted its cost/price proposal in PDF format, rather than in MS Excel, as required by the RFP's instructions.  Notwithstanding recent precedent (see Herman Constr. Grp., Inc., B-408018.2; B-408018.3), GAO here concluded that the Army's evaluation was unreasonable.  First, GAO found that the RFP did not notify offerors that the Army would reject proposals without performing a substantive evaluation (although the RFP included the boilerplate language that award would be made to an offeror that "conforms to the solicitation requirements").  Second, GAO placed the onus on the Army to "establish" why it was unable to use the PDF version to evaluate McCann's cost/price proposal, which the Army failed to do.  Finally, the Army did not adequately explain why allowing McCann to substitute an Excel version would be improper.  It is unusual to place the burden on an agency in a post-award posture to provide a substantive basis for its RFP's instructions, and this decision is likely to provide fodder for potential protesters that are disappointed in evaluations based on hyper-mechanical or superficial proposal defects.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that this case, like SAIC, B-413501 from last year, notes that it may be possible in certain DoD procurements to successfully challenge an agency's decision not to initiate discussions.  Under a 2016 DFARs provision, DoD "should" conduct discussions if it is acquiring goods or services valued at more than $100 million.  See DFARs § 215.306(c).  As a result of this provision, GAO seems willing to assess the reasonableness of an agency's decision to forego discussions in such circumstances.

T Square Logistics Services Corp., COFC No. 17-744

The late-is-late rule provides that proposals received after the date and time set in an RFP may be rejected, and there is notoriously little wiggle room on the application of the rule.  The Court of Federal Claims' decision in T Square represents the type of factual circumstances necessary for an offeror to overcome the rejection of a late proposal.

In this case, FedEx notified T Square that delivery of its proposal would be delayed due to weather.  The offeror immediately contacted employees to prepare a paper copy for hand delivery to the Air Force.  The offeror also contacted the contracting officer and contract specialist by email to notify the agency of the possible delay, and attached an electronic copy of its proposal to the notification.  The contract specialist responded that the delay was "not a problem" and that the agency "will be able to accept the hard copies when they arrive, even if FedEx delivers them after" the delivery deadline.  Relying on these assurances, the offeror directed its employees not to print or deliver another hard copy.

FedEx did not deliver the proposal until three days later and the Air Force rejected the proposal as late.  The contracting officer explained that the contract specialist's email, "while good intentioned . . . lacked the authority to materially alter the proposal submission requirements" in the RFP.  T Square pleaded with the Air Force to extend the deadline, but did not receive a response, and filed its protest with the court as a result.

The court found in favor of T Square and enjoined the agency from making award without first re-evaluating the plaintiff's proposal.  The court concluded that the Air Force's decision to reverse course from the contract specialist's direction lacked a rational basis.  The court also noted the consequences of the plaintiff's reliance on the specialist's email, and viewed the initial message from the agency as an indication to the plaintiff that the agency viewed the late delivery as a waivable "informality" or "minor irregularity."

Offerors must ensure the timely delivery of proposals in strict accordance with the RFP's terms.  Offerors should also have contingency plans in place if the primary mode of delivery is delayed or disrupted.  In addition, offerors should follow T Square's example by keeping the agency abreast of any difficulties.  No offeror wants to resort to litigation with a potential customer, but having a record of such communications probably saved T Square in this case.

Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 17-711C

Sonoran filed a protest at the COFC challenging the Air Force's decision to terminate its contract with Sonoran and award the contract to Spectre Pursuit Group, LLC (SPG).  The facts and the legal consequences provide significant reminders to awardees about the importance of intervening in a bid protest, and the possible consequences of declining to intervene.

The solicitation required the awardee to have the requisite facility clearance at the time of contract award.  In its proposal, SPG acknowledged that it did not have a facility clearance, which prompted the contracting officer to eliminate SPG from consideration.  SPG filed a protest at GAO that was dismissed.  SPG subsequently filed the first of two protests at COFC arguing that the decision to eliminate SPG amounted to a negative responsibility determination, which required the Air Force to refer the matter to SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) review.  In response to the first COFC protest, the Air Force took corrective action by referring the responsibility to SBA for a COC review.  Notably, Sonoran did not request to intervene in the first COFC protest.

SBA notified the Air Force it could not make a responsibility determination because it had already awarded the contract to Sonoran, prompting SPG to file a second protest at COFC.  Once again, Sonoran chose not to request to intervene.  In response to the second COFC protest, SBA agreed to conduct a COC review because SPG's case presented "unique circumstances," which included SPG's filing of a protest, and the Air Force's commitment in writing to SBA that it would terminate the award to Sonoran once the SBA issued a COC to SPG.

After having its contract terminated and awarded to SPG, Sonoran filed its protest at COFC.  A number of Sonoran's claims were rejected as untimely, but the challenge to the Air Force's corrective action and COFC's corresponding response may have ramifications for awardees going forward.  The Air Force argued that Sonoran's challenges to corrective action were untimely because Sonoran raised the claims after the Air Force had made its final award.

Sonoran argued that it had no knowledge of the Air Force's intent to take corrective action or the scope of such corrective action.  According to Sonoran, had it known the details of the corrective action prior to the Air Force's award to SPG, it would have filed a protest.

The court rejected this contention because, in addition to Sonoran being able to access the notice of corrective action, it could have obtained the necessary information by intervening in both SPG protests.  According to the court:

Sonoran had both ample notice of the proposed corrective action and ample time to challenge it.  For example, Sonoran surely would have learned that corrective action was on the horizon if it had intervened in SPG's initial bid protest before this Court on November 28, 2016, after the Air Force declined to refer SPG to the SBA for a responsibility determination. . . .   Sonoran also could have intervened in SPG's second bid protest before this Court on January 6, 2017, after the SBA notified the Air Force and SPG that it could not make a responsibility determination because the contract had already been awarded to Sonoran. . . .  Why Sonoran chose not to intervene in either of these protests is beyond the Court's comprehension, as Sonoran should have known that its award was at risk of being rescinded and granted to SPG instead as a result of potential corrective action.

An awardee's intervention in a protest challenging its contract award has always been critical to ensuring that the award and the evaluation are fully protected.  Sonoran serves as a reminder of that, but goes a bit further to suggest that awardees risk waiving certain legal rights if they do not intervene.  The government will defend its award and evaluation, but it will not defend the awardee's legal interests, particularly when the government's interests diverge from those of the awardee.  In addition to the motivation to defend a contract award, awardees considering intervening should also consider the risk that they may be imputed with knowledge of agency action occurring during the pendency of the protest.

Sonoran raises additional questions.  For example, can a contractor be charged with knowledge of information that is disclosed under a protective order that is later released as part of the public decision document?  If so, when is the offeror charged with such knowledge?  Also, how does this impact other offerors (i.e., beyond the awardee and protester)?  What if the scope of corrective action adversely affects other offerors' interests, and how does the court's holding impact them when, typically, other offerors are not permitted to intervene in protests?

Yard Masters, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-109

Yard Masters serves as a cautionary reminder that a company claiming status as a woman-owned small business (WOSB) must ensure that its corporate documents match its structure, and that the documents and the structure are compliant with the applicable regulations.

The Army set aside a contract for maintenance services for WOSBs, and awarded the contract to Yard Masters, Inc. (YMI).  A competitor filed a WOSB status protest with SBA arguing that YMI was ineligible for award because YMI was not majority-owned and controlled by a woman, but was instead majority-owned and controlled by the woman's husband.

YMI admitted that the woman's husband was previously the majority owner, but contended that YMI currently qualified as a WOSB because he sold stock to his wife, giving her 51% of the outstanding ownership interests.  To refute the allegation regarding control, YMI proffered the wife's résumé and corporate meeting minutes demonstrating that she was the chief executive officer.

SBA's review of YMI's corporate documents revealed that no CEO position was ever created and no duties were assigned to the CEO.  Rather, the corporate documents designated a President of the company – a position that was held by the woman's husband – as the "chief executive and administrative officer of the corporation."  SBA had additional evidence to undermine YMI's contention that the wife controlled the company, but it largely served to confirm SBA's finding that the husband had the right to control the company as its president.  The SBA Area Office concluded that YMI did not qualify as a WOSB because it was not controlled by a woman.

YMI appealed the decision to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and argued that YMI's meeting minutes demonstrated that the wife had ultimate control over the company as its CEO.  OHA disagreed because "the Board did not formally create a position of CEO" and "[t]he Bylaws were never changed to add the position of CEO."  Instead, "[t]he Bylaws clearly state that the President is the corporation's 'chief administrative and executive officer,'" which was a position held by the husband.  In addition to citing the ancillary evidence presented by SBA, OHA also noted that the husband had communicated with the SBA Area Office in response to the protest.  OHA denied the appeal and upheld the SBA Area Office's decision.

YMI is a reminder that accurate and compliant corporate documentation is as important as the day-to-day company operations.  Contractors and their advisers must have a complete understanding of the regulations that govern a company's pursuit, receipt, and performance of set-aside government contracts.  Furthermore, the company and its board must adopt resolutions that are consistent with the corporate documents and day-to-day management.

Lastly, YMI reminds us that the individual in control of the company should be signing important corporate documents and controlling communications with outside entities.

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.

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