Tag Archives: GAO protest

GAO Sides with VA, Joint Venture Must Be SDVOSB Eligible at Time of Award

Posted on by

Here at SmallGovCon, we spend a lot of time studying (and talking about) the various small business federal set-aside programs. As a result, a lot of our focus is dedicated to SBA’s regulations governing these programs—after all, it is the agency that was created by the Small Business Act to issue and implement precisely these regulations. So, it may be tempting for small business federal contractors to focus on those SBA rules and think, so long as they have complied with all the nuances they contain, their business is eligible for these sorts of set-aside contracts.

As one joint venture recently found out the hard way, however, other agencies have their own unique sets of regulations that can impact set-aside contracts as well. One such agency is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which has its own body of rules governing VA procurements—the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (“VAAR”). One of the programs that the VA implements is the Veterans First Contracting Program (“Vets First”), which interacts quite a bit with SBA’s SDVOSB program. As a result of the overlap, potential offerors on VA contracts set aside for SDVOSBs must ensure they comply with both VA and SDVOSB regulations, and this is where the protester in Potomac Valor Healthcare-2, LLC, B-423195.2 (Aug. 12, 2026) ran into trouble. GAO’s decision in the case sheds some light on the way VA’s specific requirements create additional obligations for SDVOSB joint ventures, and serves as a cautionary tale to other prospective offerors who may find themselves in a similar situation. In short, the protester was SDVOSB compliant and registered in VetCert at the time of offer, but erroneously believed that it did not have to maintain that same level of compliance at the time of award. GAO found that, as the SDVOSB partner of the joint venture was no longer small at the time of award (a fact reflected in VetCert), the JV could not receive the award.

Continue reading →

Federal Circuit Refuses to Apply Stricter Injunctive Relief Test to GAO Stays

Posted on by

We have noted in past posts that, in some cases, it may make sense to protest a solicitation evaluation or award decision at GAO simply to get a stay on the award. This is because, if you meet certain deadlines, a stay of award and performance is automatically placed on the procurement for the duration of the protest. Now, there are circumstances in which an agency can override this stay, but the burden is on the agency to show such an override is necessary. The Federal Circuit confirmed this is the case in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, 172 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2026), in which an agency tried to get the higher burden for a preliminary injunction placed on GAO protesters. This decision suggests that agencies may think more carefully about attempting overrides of stays going forward.

Continue reading →

GAO to Federal Agency: You Must Show Your Work When it Comes to Evaluation Documentation

Posted on by

The gears of protest resolution at the General Accountability Office have ground to a halt due to the government shutdown but not so long ago, those protest gears were turning. And during that time, GAO sustained the protest of Island Peer Review Organization, Inc., d/b/a IPRO, B-417298.2, 2025 CPD ¶ 218 (Sept. 2025) due to an agency’s insufficient documentation of an evaluation process. What makes this one especially interesting is that getting a sustain on a protest based on inadequate documentation is somewhat rare. When it comes to inadequate documentation, it is more likely an agency takes corrective action, which shields the agency from having to share (under a protective order) source selection information. Or in many cases, if the protest makes it all the way to the comments portion of the protest, GAO finds that an agency did provide sufficient documentation. Read on to learn what it took for this protester to succeed on the inadequate documentation claim.

Continue reading →

A Refresher on How the Small Business Rule of Two Generally Works

Posted on by

We have talked a good deal about the Small Business Rule of Two (not to be confused with the separate VA rule of two for veteran-owned businesses) over the years. The (very) general gist of the rule is this: If the procurement is above the simplified acquisition threshold, the agency must set it aside for small businesses if two or more small businesses can perform the work at fair prices. If the agency has a reasonable expectation that two or more SDVOSB/VOSBs, EDWOSBs/WOSBs, 8(a) participants, or HUBZone participants can perform work under a procurement, the agency must consider setting aside the procurement for that particular category (i.e., if it believes two or more 8(a) participants can perform the work, it can set aside the procurement for 8(a) participants). However, it appears there remains a good deal of confusion about what the Rule of Two requires, as opposed to what it simply permits. In a recent GAO protest, a contractor learned this the hard way, and today, we’ll explore that decision.

Continue reading →

Timing is Everything: GAO Dismisses Post-Bid Protest of Solicitation Terms as Untimely

Posted on by

It is safe to say that every federal contractor, at one time or another, has felt the terms of a solicitation were unfair or otherwise didn’t make sense. Federal agencies are comprised of people, and people make mistakes. Sometimes, then, mistakes make it into the solicitation. Unfair or erroneous terms in a solicitation are a valid grounds for a protest, but it is crucial to know when such a protest is timely. In most cases, if the time for bids has passed, any protest of the terms of the solicitation, be it at GAO or the Court of Federal Claims, will be untimely. There are rare exceptions, but, in general, a protest of terms of the solicitation must be brought before bids are due to be timely. Untimeliness equals dismissal. In this post, we will explore a protest GAO dismissed for this very reason.

Continue reading →

GAO Protest Sustain: Flawed Price Realism Analysis

Posted on by

We often see price realism in protests when the protester is making the claim that the awardee’s price, which was lower than the protester’s price, is low enough that the awardee would not be able to perform the work as solicited. Most often, GAO will determine that the agency’s price realism analysis was acceptable. However, in Criterion Corporation, B-422309 (Apr 16, 2024), the agency determined that the lowest priced offeror’s price was too low, and that the company could not possibly perform at the price offered. This led to the next lowest priced offeror receiving the award, and the lowest priced offeror protesting that decision, ultimately winning its argument.

Continue reading →

GAO: Brand Name or Equal RFQ Must Explicitly State All Salient Characteristics

Posted on by

Solicitations for brand name or equal products are commonly used by contracting officers to ensure that the products procured via the contract meet minimum requirements. However, as one agency found, the salient characteristics required to meet the minimum requirements must be explicitly stated in the solicitation. And, evaluating the product on any characteristics that are not included in the solicitation, even if incorporated by reference to the name brand item, can lead to an improper exclusion of offerors from competition.

Continue reading →