GAO Sustains Protest Based on Latent Ambiguity
Effectus represented the protester in this matter.
The Procurement
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a task order competition under FAR subpart 8.4 for preventative and corrective maintenance services for access control points at 19 Army installations in the Northeast. The procurement was set aside for small businesses and contemplated a best-value award considering technical approach, past performance, and price.
Under the technical approach factor, vendors were required to submit a narrative not to exceed 15 single-sided pages. The solicitation stated that certain materials - “Resumes, Schedules, Table of Contents, Cover Page/Letter, Cut Sheets, Drawings etc.”- would not be counted against the page limit.
The Agency’s Evaluation
After corrective action in response to an earlier protest, the agency reevaluated quotations and concluded that Perimeter Security Partners’ (PSP’s) technical quotation exceeded the page limit. The agency removed PSP’s organizational chart and response-times chart from consideration, assessed two deficiencies, and rated PSP’s quotation unacceptable, rendering it ineligible for award.
The agency took the position that these charts were not “drawings” or otherwise excluded from the page count.
PSP protested.
The Protest Grounds
PSP argued that:
The organizational chart and response-times chart fell within the solicitation’s exclusion for “Drawings etc.”
At a minimum, the solicitation was ambiguous as to what materials would be excluded from the page count
The agency unreasonably relied on one interpretation of that ambiguity to disqualify PSP’s quotation
GAO’s Decision
GAO sustained the protest, finding that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity regarding whether charts such as organizational charts and response-time charts were excluded from the page limit.
GAO concluded that:
Both the agency’s and PSP’s interpretations of “Drawings etc.” were reasonable
The ambiguity was not patent, because it was not obvious, gross, or glaring on the face of the solicitation
PSP was competitively prejudiced when the agency relied on only one reasonable interpretation to exclude required information and rate PSP unacceptable
GAO emphasized that where a solicitation is latently ambiguous, the proper remedy is clarification and an opportunity for vendors to respond, not disqualification.
Why It Matters
Page-limit issues are often treated as mechanical. This decision is a reminder that they are not.
When solicitation instructions about page limits or exclusions are ambiguous, agencies cannot simply choose the interpretation that eliminates a competitor, particularly where required content is affected.
GAO will scrutinize page-limit enforcement just as closely as substantive evaluation criteria.
Contractor Takeaways
Read page-limit exclusions carefully. Terms like “etc.” matter.
Charts, tables, and graphics can fall into gray areas. Ambiguity cuts both ways.
Latent ambiguities are protestable post-award. You are not required to anticipate every reasonable interpretation.
Disqualification based on page limits is not immune from challenge.
Early legal review can identify ambiguity before it becomes fatal - or preserve a protest ground after award.