United States: May 2019 Bid Protest Roundup

Our monthly bid protest Law360 spotlight will discuss a handful of interesting bid protests from the preceding month, highlighting the most noteworthy aspects of the decisions for companies competing for contracts and agencies seeking procurement.

This installment of our bid protest roundup takes a look at three interesting protests from May.

The first examines the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) rejection of an agency's exclusion of an offeror from competition due to a subcontractor's employment of a former government employee who had a connection to the procurement at issue and a prior professional relationship with at least one of the agency's evaluators.

Our second decision is a case of "third try's a charm," where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in favor of the protester after the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims denied a protest challenging a longstanding award limitation found in certain Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) solicitations.

We conclude with a GAO protest involving commercial and government entity (CAGE) codes and facility clearances (FCLs) and the importance of being clear with what one is requesting.

Obsidian Solutions Group, LLC, B-417134, B-417134.2: The GAO sustained this protest objecting to the agency's exclusion of an offeror due to the offeror's subcontractor's hiring of a former government employee and that person's appearance at an oral presentation on the offeror's behalf.


The procurement involved multiple-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, with awards to be made to all offerors that satisfied the solicitation's minimum qualification requirements. As relevant here, the solicitation required each offeror to make an oral presentation addressing, among other things, the offeror's approach to a scenario involving the Marine Air-Ground Task Force Staff Training Program (MSTP).

The protester, in advance of its oral presentation, submitted a slide deck that pictured its oral presentation team and a list of participants, including a particular subcontractor employee. This employee was a former government employee who recently retired from the MSTP and had been involved in the issuance of the MSTP standard operating procedures, which were incorporated by reference into the solicitation. The employee's government ethics officer had issued him a post-government employment opinion letter, opining that he was not prohibited from representing the protester and its subcontractor before the government after leaving government service.

The contracting officer notified the protest that the former government employee's participation gave the "appearance of impropriety" and created an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) because: (1) his name appeared in "the solicitation materials"; (2) his knowledge of the MSTP standing operating procedures might influence the agency's evaluators; (3) the MSTP procedures were "relatively recent" with respect to the procurement cycle; and (4) the employee previously was the supervisor of one of the technical evaluation team members. The contracting officer subsequently issued formal notice of the protester's exclusion from the competition based upon the possibility that the former government employee gave the protester access to competitively useful non-public information and potentially influenced the agency's evaluators as a result of his role in issuance of the MSTP procedures.

Following notice of its exclusion, Obsidian protested to the GAO.


The GAO first clarified that, although the agency referred to an apparent OCI, allegations that an offeror's hiring or association with former government employees who are alleged to have access to non-public, competitively useful information are more accurately categorized as unfair competitive advantages under FAR subpart 3.1 rather than as OCIs under FAR subpart 9.5.

As with OCIs, however, allegations of unfair competitive advantage and the appearance of impropriety must be based on "hard facts" and not "mere innuendo or suspicions." The GAO cited its prior precedents for the principle that "[a] person's familiarity with the type of work required resulting from the person's prior position in the government is not, by itself, evidence of an unfair competitive advantage."

Here, because every qualified offeror would receive an IDIQ contract award, the GAO found that hiring a former agency employee did not give the protester a competitive advantage over the other offerors. Nor did the GAO find the agency had identified any "hard facts" establishing access to competitively useful information. First, the MSTP standard operating procedures was a public document, and the employee's insider knowledge of how it was drafted and what was excluded from it was irrelevant, and there was no suggestion he "steered" the process to benefit the protester. Second, his knowledge of budgets was irrelevant, as price was not an evaluation factor for the competition, and the total ceiling value of all task orders was published in the solicitation. Finally, his potential knowledge of the incumbent's performance shortfalls was irrelevant, as the agency could articulate no basis for how such knowledge could harm the incumbent's chance for award, or enhance the protester's.

Because the record failed to establish the agency's position that the protester had access to competitively useful non-public information, the GAO sustained the protest.


The unusual nature of this procurement, where every qualified offeror was guaranteed a contract award, made it significantly more difficult for the agency to demonstrate the competitive advantage that might be gained by any non-public information the former government employee might have possessed. This contributed in large measure to the protester's victory.

Although the agency's desire to avoid the appearance of unfairness was admirable, the record as described in the GAO decision lacked any "hard facts" establishing an improper advantage. In other words, the record contained facts that made the agency uncomfortable, but the agency failed to document a rigorous analysis of why those facts required the exclusion of the offeror from the competition.

Although the protester prevailed here, offerors should engage counsel and carefully weigh the pros and cons of involving former government employees in proposal efforts where an agency or a competitor might perceive the potential for the appearance of impropriety or OCI. Even where the revolving-door regulations do not prohibit the former government employee from participating, the question of the appearance of impropriety is broader and more nebulous than those regulations. Thus, even where an agency ethics officer has "cleared" the individual to participate in a matter, an offeror should consider his or her potential usefulness to the proposal effort and the firmness of the offeror's conclusion that no appearance of impropriety exists. In cases of doubt, a good firewall will go a long way toward avoiding the risk of an exclusion or a successful protest.

National Government Services, Inc. v. United States (Federal Circuit 2019): Following an unsuccessful GAO protest, and an unsuccessful second-bite protest at the Court of Federal Claims, the protester prevailed before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its challenge to award limitations that for nearly a decade have featured in certain solicitations issued by CMS.


CMS uses contractors called Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to administer claims and benefits related to the Medicare program, with MAC contracts covering 12 geographic "jurisdictions" across the country. For nearly a decade, MAC solicitations have included an award limitation policy, preventing any single contractor from receiving more than 26 percent of the national Medicare A/B workload or any set of affiliated contractors from receiving more than 40 percent of the workload. CMS says these limitations are designed to further competition and reduce the risk of placing an overly large share of claims administration with any one entity or family of entities. As it had for prior competitions, CMS included the limitation policy in its solicitation for selecting a MAC contractor for Jurisdiction H.

The protester here objected to the award limitation policy, arguing that it should be able to compete for Jurisdiction H, even if the award would cause it to exceed the maximum workshare percentage allowed by the limitation policy. The protester filed a timely pre-award challenge to the solicitation terms with the GAO, which denied the protest. The protester then filed a "second-bite" protest at the Court of Federal Claims, which similarly denied the protest. The protester then took the unusual step of appealing the denial to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.


Without addressing the merits of CMS's award limitation policy, the Federal Circuit focused narrowly on the procedural question of whether CMS complied with the Competition in Contracting Act's (CICA's) requirement that agencies procure goods and services using full and open competition unless the agency properly invokes one of the statute's defined exceptions to full and open competition.

The court first rejected the government's argument that it has provided full and open competition as long as an offeror is allowed to "submit" a proposal. The court held that any such submission would be futile in light of the limitation policy, notwithstanding the fact that, in exceptional circumstances, the policy allows a particular offeror to exceed the permitted percentage if no other awardable proposal has been submitted.

The court also rejected the government's argument that the policy does not run afoul of CICA's competition requirements because the limitation is an evaluation factor rather than a limit on competition. The court expressed skepticism about whether this was truly an "evaluation factor" but observed in any event that the policy applied to all jurisdictions and was not a particular performance requirement tailored to a particular solicitation. Because the award limitation policy was "not based on some capability or experience requirement," but rather on an "attempt to divvy up the MAC contracts," it was in essence a competition limitation.

The court then marched through the competition limitations permitted by CICA, and the procedures an agency must follow to invoke those exceptions, and found CMS had satisfied none of them prior to including the award limitation policy in the Jurisdiction H solicitation. And although CICA and the FAR allow agencies to exclude certain sources from a competition under certain circumstances, the court found CMS did not undertake the necessary procedural steps to use those authorities in this procurement.

As a result, and without reaching the question of whether the award limitation policy furthered legitimate agency goals, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the protest for further proceedings.


There are a few takeaways here.

First, agencies enjoy broad discretion in defining their requirements and imposing reasonable restrictions in solicitations to meet those requirements. It is generally difficult to challenge such restrictions, although protesters occasionally prevail – as we recently saw with the challenge to restrictions in the General Services Administration's (GSA's) OASIS solicitation. When the agency's discretion crosses the line from imposing programmatic requirements to limiting the scope of who may compete, agencies must follow procedures that CICA and its implementing regulations carefully define. Failure to do so may result in a protest being sustained.

Second, protests are not easy to win. It is even more difficult to win a second-bite protest at the Court of Federal Claims after losing at the GAO. Prevailing at the Federal Circuit after suffering defeat at both the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims is quite rare but, as this case shows, not impossible.

Finally, winning a protest does not necessarily mean one gets an award or, for a pre-award protest such as this, that one forces the agency to change the solicitation. CMS lost on appeal because of procedural errors, and the court was careful to state it was not opining on the wisdom of the award limitation policy itself. It will be interesting to see whether CMS's corrective action will consist of changing the terms of the solicitation (and longstanding CMS policy) or simply doing a better job of documenting why a CICA exception is appropriate here, in light of the agency's perceived needs.

BDO USA, LLP, B-416504.2, May 22, 2019: Our final summary involves a firm successfully challenging the rejection of its proposal due to the agency's failure to consider clearance information the offeror provided in its quotation.


The agency issued a request for quotations (RFQ) to holders of the GSA's Professional Services Schedule contract holders. As relevant here, the RFQ required each vendor to identify its CAGE code and required the contractor to possess a Secret-level or higher FCL. After an initial protest and cancellation of the RFQ, the agency reissued the RFQ and solicited new quotations.

The protester submitted a timely quotation and identified its CAGE code, as required. It also advised the agency that it held the required FCL under a different CAGE code, which was issued to the same legal entity as was submitting the quotation. The protester's quotation correctly advised the agency that different CAGE codes can be assigned to different offices of the same legal entity.

This response apparently confused the agency, which asked the Defense Security Service (DSS) whether it could award a contract to an offeror under one CAGE code, even though the FCL was registered under a different CAGE code. DSS replied that the vendor's primary CAGE code did not have an FCL listed in the National Industrial Security Program, and any facility "would need to be cleared to the appropriate level of the classified contract." Based upon its understanding of DSS's reply, the agency rejected the protester's quote as failing to meet the RFQ's clearance requirements.

The firm then filed a timely protest of its exclusion, contending that it met the RFQ's requirements.


The GAO first noted that, although CAGE codes can dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes, the same legal entity can have multiple CAGE codes. The quotation here specified that the protester as a single legal entity had two CAGE codes – one for its headquarters (which held the FCL) and one for the ordering site (which submitted the quote).

The GAO found it unreasonable for the agency to reject the protester's quotation based upon DSS's responses. First, the agency did not provide DSS either with the RFQ's requirements or with the vendor's response. Thus, DSS was unable to opine on whether the protester was awardable. Second, DSS's own responses "suggest[ed] DSS may have improperly equated a CAGE code with a single entity and/or did not fully comprehend the circumstances of the procurement and the basis for the agency's inquiry." Nor did DSS's responses suggest the protester was not in compliance with DSS regulatory requirements, as the agency contended.

The GAO therefore found that the agency unreasonably excluded the protester's quotation and recommended it perform a reevaluation, taking into consideration the vendor's explanation regarding its FCL and CAGE codes.


Although CAGE codes are ubiquitous and many solicitations require security clearances, there often is misunderstanding – both by offerors and by procuring agencies – about what CAGE codes are and what FCLs require. When a solicitation requires an offeror to demonstrate it has the appropriate clearances, it is worth being especially clear (as the vendor here was) about how clearances track to CAGE codes if there is a discrepancy between the CAGE code of the offeror's submitting site and the site that holds the FCL.

It also is important to seek clarification if a solicitation requires "the offeror" to hold a clearance, but the offeror intends to rely on a clearance held by an affiliate, a joint venture member, or a subcontractor to meet the requirement. If the solicitation is susceptible to different interpretations, it is prudent to ask the agency a question before submitting a proposal.

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
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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