United States: August 2019 Bid Protest Roundup

Last Updated: September 11 2019
Article by Ali Young

This installment of our monthly bid protest Law360 spotlight takes a look at three protest decisions from August, highlighting the most noteworthy aspects of the decisions for companies competing for contracts and agencies seeking procurement.

The first examines the Government Accountability Office's ("GAO") decision to deny a protest challenging an agency's decision to withhold proprietary data from prospective offerors in a solicitation. GAO had to closely review the terms of the solicitation and evaluation scheme to determine if the data was necessary for offerors to submit intelligent and responsive proposals.

Our second decision is a case involving information security requirements and whether a contractor could wholly rely on its subcontractor to meet the requirements under the terms of the solicitation. This decision also serves as an important reminder that the GAO has strict timeliness rules regarding challenges to improprieties of solicitations.

The final summary looks at another GAO rejection of a protest that challenged both the agency's classification of the procurement on Federal Business Opportunities ("FBO"), and the short response time to submit offers.

United Aeronautical Corp., B-417560, August 7, 2019:

GAO denied this protest challenging an agency's withholding of proprietary data from offerors, finding the data was not required for offerors to submit intelligent and responsive proposals.


The Air Force solicited proposals for a hybrid fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract for the demilitarization and retrofitting of seven HC-130H aircraft with aerial retardant delivery systems ("RDS"). The HC-130H aircrafts at issue, a multi-role variant of the C-130 cargo aircraft, was to be transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the State of California for firefighting operations. For over a decade, the government had used C-130 aircrafts outfitted with a modular airborne fire-fighting system ("MAFFS") to deliver fire retardant. The original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") for the C-130 collected flight data during C-130 missions employing the MAFFS delivery system.

The Request for Proposal ("RFP") included a contract line item number ("CLIN") requiring the offeror, after award of the contract, to subcontract with the OEM of the C-130 aircraft to receive data, analysis, and validation work. Specifically, the RFP indicated that the OEM would be responsible for supporting the engineering certification requirement of the statement of work ("SOW"), and provide validation for various analyses. The OEM was to use the data it had collected on the C-130 missions for these analyses. The offerors were thus only required to propose add-on factor rates for this CLIN, such as general and administrative rates, which would be applied to the OEM support proposal and incorporated after contract award. The CLIN was to be paid for on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis.

United Aeronautical Corporation ("UAC") lodged a pre-award protest contending that the RFP lacked "critical information" by not providing offerors with the OEM's C-130 MAFFS performance data. Therefore, UAC argued the RFP did not afford offerors the opportunity to prepare intelligent and responsive proposals to compete on an equal basis.


The GAO disagreed with UAC's argument that withholding the MAFFS data rendered the RFP lacking adequate information. While it is true that the government must provide offerors sufficient detail in a solicitation, it is not required to provide a level of detail so as to "eliminate all risk" or "remove every uncertainty" prospective offerors might have. Looking at the terms of the RFP, the GAO explained that although aircraft integration was part of the Statement of Work, it did not require offerors to propose detailed integration approaches. Furthermore, aircraft integration was not an evaluation factor in the RFP. Additionally, the Agency successfully argued that the MAFFS data would only be used in later stages of the design work during contract performance. Therefore, offerors did not need the MAFFS data to prepare responsive proposals.

UAC also claimed that not providing the MAFFS data unduly restricted competition and gave entities more familiar with Air Force needs an advantage. Rejecting this argument, the GAO first noted that the MAFFS data was proprietary to the OEM and could not be provided to offerors in a usable format. This is why the RFP required offerors to subcontract with the OEM after award, and why the government would pay the CLIN on a cost-reimbursement basis. Therefore, all offerors were put on equal footing. Second, even if other entities had more familiarity with Air Force's specific needs, UAC failed to prove how this was an unfair advantage. GAO reminded UAC that "[t]he government has no obligation to equalize a legitimate competitive advantage that a firm may enjoy be virtue of its incumbency . . . or because it gained experience under a prior government contract."

Thus, GAO denied the protest.


This case is an illustration of the balance the GAO must strike between ensuring the government has provided sufficient information to offerors, while also ensuring it does not establish a standard requiring the government to provide unnecessary information. The terms of the solicitation and the evaluation scheme therein are critical tools for the GAO in determining how to strike this balance. Therefore, if it appears that the government has withheld critical information, carefully review the solicitation to determine whether that information is necessary for aspects of the proposal that will actually be evaluated.

Additionally, this decision is yet another reminder to offerors and their counsel that to successfully raise an argument a solicitation does not allow offerors to compete on relatively equal terms, it must prove how an advantage other offerors might have is unfair. Fair does not necessarily mean a completely level playing field. Instead offerors must show that a competitor's advantage "results from improper preferential treatment or unfair action." Foley Co., B-253408, Sept. 14, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 165. The GAO has consistently found that an incumbent possessing unique capabilities due to its prior performance under a contract does not meet this standard.

American Justice Solutions, Inc., dba Corrective Solutions, B-417171.2, August 16, 2019:

The GAO denied this protest challenging the release of an offeror's prior pricing information during a debriefing for a cancelled award, and found the agency's evaluation of proposals regarding information security systems was proper where the offeror wholly relied upon its proposed subcontractor to meet information security requirements.


On November 6, 2018, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia ("PSA") issued a Request for Quotations ("RFQ") for commercial services to monitor defendants electronically. Part of this work included the contractor exchanging data about defendants and their whereabouts with PSA through PSA's secure web interface. Thus, the Performance of Work Statement ("PWS") required the contractor to comply with minimum information security standards such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 ("FISMA") and National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST").

In August 2018, PSA awarded American Justice Solutions, Inc., d/b/a CorrectiveSolutions ("American") a contract under a similar solicitation. In a debriefing with a disappointed offeror for that solicitation, Sentinel Offender Services ("Sentinel"), PSA disseminated American's pricing information. Sentinel subsequently protested the award to American. As a result, PSA took corrective action, cancelled the award to American, and issued the instant RFQ in November 2018.

American again submitted a proposal and participated in several rounds of discussions with PSA. Because American did not have an information system compliant with FISMA and NIST standards, American's proposal and answers to PSA's questions identified its subcontractor as the entity meeting the RFQ's security requirements. However, PSA assigned several weaknesses and deficiencies related to American's information security approach because American could not wholly rely upon a subcontractor to meet these requirements. Yet, PSA did not assign the same deficiencies and weaknesses to the awardee which similarly did not have FISMA and NIST standards in place.

American lodged the instant protest raising three grounds: (1) PSA's release of American's previous pricing information rendered the competition unfair; (2) PSA misevaluated American's proposal regarding the information security requirements; and (3) PSA unequally evaluated proposals.


GAO first dismissed American's protest ground challenging the release of American's pricing information. It found that American had been informed as early as October 2018, through correspondence from PSA, that PSA disclosed American's previous pricing information to Sentinel during debriefings. Additionally, American knew, or should have known, that the RFQ at issue here was therefore unfair when it was released on November 9, 2018. In other words, American knew all the facts that it raised in this protest ground six months prior to submitting this protest, and approximately a month prior to the RFQ's due date for proposals. GAO's timeliness rules require protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are known prior to the due date for offers to be filed before that time. Therefore, without reaching the merits of American's first argument, GAO dismissed it as untimely.

While GAO did reach the merits of American's second and third protest grounds, it ultimately denied the protest. American's argument that it could rely on its proposed subcontractor to meet information security requirements in the RFQ was unsupported by the terms of the RFQ. Nothing in the RFQ indicated that a prime contractor could delegate the compliance entirely to its subcontractor. Furthermore, PSA explained that the RFQ required dissemination of sensitive information between the prime contractor and PSA. Therefore, American could not avoid the requirement to have adequate information security systems in place. Thus, the Agency's evaluation of American's proposal was reasonable.

Additionally, PSA did not evaluate American's and the awardee's proposals unequally. PSA pointed out that although the awardee was not currently compliant with FISMA and NIST standards, the awardee's proposal specifically addressed how it would bring its security system into compliance within 120 days. This approach was acceptable under the RFQ, whereas American wholly relying upon a subcontractor's system was not. Therefore, PSA did not treat the offerors unequally, and GAO denied the protest.


The takeaways here are a mix of both established principles and new lessons. The first portion of the GAO's decision serves as a reminder to contractors that GAO has strict timeliness rules. If you believe there are improprieties in a solicitation, you must lodge your protest before the deadline for submitting offers closes. Otherwise GAO will not even consider the merits of your argument.

Additionally, the government has recently started focusing more attention on contractors' compliance with information security standards. Often, complying with these standards can be costly and burdensome for contractors. However, this decision serves as a lesson that unless expressly permitted by the solicitation, contractors should not expect to be able to rely on subcontractors for meeting information security requirements. That said, if you are not compliant at the time proposals are due, do not automatically discount your ability to submit a winning proposal. Carefully read the terms of the solicitation to determine whether you can address how you can become compliant by a specified time period.

Warrior Service Company, B-417574, August 19, 2019:

The GAO denied a protest challenging the agency's assigned classification of a solicitation and found that less than seven days to submit quotes was a reasonable amount of time.

Facts and Analysis:

On May 8, 2019, the VA issued a RFQ for the procurement of five Hill-Rom brand LIKO overheard lift systems and related supplies and services. The RFQ was set-aside for small businesses, and followed the commercial items and simplified acquisition procedures in FAR parts 12 and 13. When the VA posted the RFQ on Federal Business Opportunities ("FBO"), it classified the RFQ as a solicitation for supplies rather than services. Additionally, the VA only gave offerors until May 14, 2019, i.e. less than week, to submit proposals.

Warrior Service Company ("Warrior") filed a protest challenging the solicitation on grounds that, inter alia, the VA misclassified the RFQ on FBO, and did not allow offerors a reasonable time to submit quotations.

Specifically, Warrior argued the RFQ required installation and training for the lift systems, and therefore, should have been classified as a procurement for services. However, the GAO explained that it will only overturn a classification determination where it is shown to be unreasonable. Here, Warrior failed to meet this standard. Although the RFQ included installation and training requirements, those services were ancillary to the procurement for the overhead lifts. Additionally, the lifts, not the related services, constituted a majority of the cost for the procurement. Therefore, the lifts were the primary component of the procurement. Consequently, GAO found the VA's determination to classify the RFQ as a procurement of supplies was reasonable.

GAO also denied Warrior's argument that the response time for submitting quotations was unreasonable. Warrior proclaimed that nearly seven days was insufficient due to the "complexity, commerciality, availability, and urgency of this particular procurement." Normally, the FAR requires agencies to allow offerors at least 30 days from the date of the issuance to submit offers. However, in instances where the agency is procuring commercial items or the procurement is below the simplified acquisition threshold, such as the RFQ here, the agency may allow fewer than 30 days. In setting the response time, the agency need only show it provides a reasonable opportunity to respond considering various factors. The VA explained that its market research identified six small businesses that could readily meet the requirements, and because the lift systems were commercial items, it should not take a potential offeror long to determine whether it could supply the lifts. Therefore, the GAO confirmed the VA's determination that nearly seven days was a reasonable amount of time to respond to the RFQ.

After denying Warrior's final argument that the RFQ was ambiguous, the GAO denied the protest.


Although less than a week seems to be an unreasonable amount of time to submit offers, on its face, this decision is an illustration of the deference afforded to agencies in determining reasonable response times. Therefore, contractors must be diligent in assessing just how much time it has to put together an offer when first spotting an opportunity on FBO. Additionally, contractors be aware that when a procurement calls for both supplies and services, it cannot assume the agency will classify the opportunity in FBO how it thinks the opportunity should be classified. Warrior argued it was unable to find the opportunity on FBO because the VA classified the RFQ as one for supplies rather than services. However, if it had also checked other, clearly related, classification codes, it might have been able to find the opportunity in time.

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