GAO Sustains Protest Over Ambiguous Solicitation Terms in Army Access Control Contract

In a decision dated March 11, 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a protest filed by Perimeter Security Partners, LLC (PSP), finding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ evaluation of quotations under a solicitation for preventative and corrective maintenance services at Army access control points was flawed due to a latent ambiguity in the solicitation’s page limit instructions. The protest, Perimeter Security Partners, LLC, B-422666.4, concerned a request for quotations (RFQ) issued under FAR subpart 8.4 for work at 19 installations in the northeastern United States.

At the heart of the dispute was the Corps’ determination that PSP’s proposal exceeded the 15-page limit for its technical approach narrative. Specifically, the Corps excluded PSP’s organizational chart and response times chart from evaluation, reasoning that they exceeded the limit. PSP argued that these documents should have been excluded from the page count under the RFQ’s provision stating that “Resumes, Schedules, Table of Contents, Cover Page/Letter, Cut Sheets, Drawings etc.” would not count toward the page limit. PSP maintained that both charts qualified as “Drawings etc.” and that the agency’s exclusion of those documents was unreasonable. Alternatively, PSP claimed the solicitation was latently ambiguous.

GAO agreed with PSP’s position, finding that both the protester’s and the agency’s interpretations of “Drawings etc.” were reasonable. While the Corps contended that the charts contained detailed information not fitting the definition of a drawing, PSP convincingly argued that charts are visual, non-narrative elements similar to drawings. GAO emphasized that the term “etc.” implied inclusion of other similar items and that organizational and response time charts logically fit within this category. Because the ambiguity was not obvious on the face of the solicitation—i.e., not patent—but rather arose only after the Corps reinterpreted the RFQ during reevaluation, GAO concluded that the ambiguity was latent.

This ambiguity led to the assignment of two deficiencies to PSP’s proposal, resulting in a rating of “unacceptable” and eliminating PSP from award consideration despite its lower price and other evaluated strengths. The GAO determined that PSP was prejudiced by this interpretation and that the exclusion of its charts significantly impacted the evaluation.

In its decision, GAO recommended that the Corps clarify the ambiguous solicitation language and provide vendors an opportunity to resubmit quotations accordingly. Alternatively, if the Corps deems PSP’s interpretation reasonable, it should reevaluate PSP’s proposal, including the disputed charts, and make a new best-value decision. GAO further recommended that PSP be reimbursed its protest costs, including attorneys’ fees.

This case underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous solicitation language, particularly when proposals may be evaluated and potentially disqualified on the basis of strict page limits. It also highlights GAO’s willingness to uphold a protest when ambiguity unfairly penalizes a vendor, especially one offering the lowest-priced, technically strong proposal. The Corps’ reevaluation of PSP’s submission under clarified terms—or reconsideration based on PSP’s interpretation—may lead to a different award outcome, signaling the real impact of clarity in acquisition documents.

This blog post is a summary of the publicly released GAO decision B-422666.4. All credit is due to the report’s author, Edda Emmanuelli Perez, General Counsel of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only. It does not guarantee accuracy and should not be construed as legal advice.