GAO Sustains Protest Against GSA Solicitation Due to Unreasonable Restrictions on Competition
In a recent decision, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in favor of Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., a small business providing facilities maintenance services, in its protest against the terms of a solicitation issued by the General Services Administration (GSA). The protest revolved around a request for quotations (RFQ) for facilities maintenance services across multiple locations in Georgia. The GAO determined that parts of the solicitation were unduly restrictive, ultimately limiting competition in ways that were not sufficiently justified by the GSA.
Wilson 5's primary objections centered on two specific requirements in the solicitation. First, the company contested the stipulation that vendors' prior experience needed to involve services provided at geographically dispersed locations—specifically, two or more facilities that were at least 200 miles apart under a single contract. Second, Wilson 5 argued that the two-phase evaluation process, where the most critical evaluation factor—the management plan—was not considered until the second phase, was unreasonable and could discourage potential competitors from submitting their bids.
The GAO agreed with Wilson 5 on several points. It found that GSA failed to adequately justify the 200-mile distance requirement and the insistence on experience under one contract. According to the GAO, GSA did not demonstrate why facilities maintenance services performed at multiple locations under several contracts could not meet the agency's needs just as effectively as services performed under a single contract. Moreover, GSA's reliance on an arbitrary 200-mile threshold between service locations was questioned, given that many of the facilities in the contract were less than 200 miles apart. The GAO noted that penalizing vendors for offering services at locations slightly under this threshold lacked reasonable justification and unfairly limited the pool of eligible bidders.
The protest also highlighted the issue with GSA’s two-phase evaluation scheme. While the GAO denied this portion of the protest, it recognized the protester's concerns. In the first phase of the evaluation process, factors like prior experience and past performance were assessed, but the most important factor, the management plan, was only considered in the second phase. The GAO ultimately found that GSA’s phased approach was not unduly restrictive, as vendors could still submit a proposal for the second phase, regardless of their evaluation in the first. GSA argued that this two-phase process was designed to reduce unnecessary proposal preparation costs for vendors and conserve agency resources, which the GAO found to be a reasonable explanation.
However, the GAO’s decision to sustain the protest regarding the prior experience requirement underscores the importance of fair and open competition in federal contracting. The GAO recommended that GSA amend the solicitation to remove the unreasonable restrictions, particularly those related to the 200-mile minimum distance and the requirement for prior experience to be limited to a single contract. These changes aim to provide a more level playing field for small businesses like Wilson 5, which might have the necessary experience but in different contract configurations.
The broader implications of this decision emphasize the need for government agencies to carefully justify the terms of their solicitations, especially when they could limit competition. Arbitrary thresholds and restrictive requirements can inadvertently shut out qualified vendors, reducing the potential for achieving the best value for taxpayers. In this case, GSA’s goal of ensuring geographic dispersion of services was not adequately balanced with the need for a fair competitive process.
The content on this site, including articles, images, and logos, is protected by copyright and intellectual property laws and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be considered legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. For legal advice, consult with a qualified attorney or legal professional.