GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Departed from Solicitation’s Past Performance Criteria
Effectus represented the protester in this matter.
The Procurement
The Army issued a task order under the Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems (GTACS) II multiple-award IDIQ for global field service representative (GFSR) support services. Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering technical, past performance, and cost/price, with past performance significantly more important than cost/price.
Under the past performance factor, offerors were required to submit recent and relevant references, which would be evaluated against four identified “critical capabilities,” including:
Maintenance and logistical support of fixed/strategic terminals
Maintenance and logistical support of tactical terminals
The solicitation described tactical terminals as 1-6 meters and strategic/fixed terminals as 7-9 meters in diameter.
Trace Systems and the awardee (Comtech) both received adjectival ratings of Substantial Confidence for past performance. The Army nevertheless selected Comtech based on price, concluding that Trace’s better past performance did not justify paying a 3.6% premium.
Trace protested.
The Protest Grounds
Trace challenged, among other things, the Army’s past performance evaluation, alleging that the agency abandoned the solicitation’s definitions of fixed/strategic versus tactical terminals.
GAO’s Decision
GAO sustained the protest on the past performance evaluation.
GAO found that:
The solicitation defined tactical and strategic/fixed terminals by size
The Army instead evaluated terminals based on functional characteristics, contrary to the solicitation
Using this alternative definition, the Army credited Comtech with demonstrating fixed/strategic terminal experience that its reference did not actually show
GAO concluded that this constituted a departure from the stated evaluation criteria and therefore was unreasonable.
GAO further found a reasonable possibility of competitive prejudice, because the erroneous credit affected one of the two most important critical capabilities and could have altered the best-value tradeoff.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a foundational principle of bid protest law:
Agencies must evaluate proposals using the criteria and definitions set forth in the solicitation. They may not substitute their own alternative frameworks after proposals are submitted.
Even when offerors receive the same adjectival rating, how the agency arrives at that rating matters, particularly where the solicitation identifies certain capabilities as more important than others.
Contractor Takeaways
Read solicitation definitions literally. If a term is defined, agencies are bound by it.
Look past adjectival ratings. Identical ratings do not insulate an evaluation from protest.
Scrutinize what the agency “credited.” Unsupported strengths and capabilities are fertile protest ground.
Prejudice does not require certainty. A reasonable possibility of a different outcome is enough.
Debriefings that reference alternative interpretations of requirements deserve close review.
Bottom Line
When an agency departs from its own evaluation framework, contractors do not have to accept the result.
Early legal review of evaluation records and debriefings can identify these issues before protest deadlines close.