Precision in Process: The GAO's Evaluation of Patriot Group International's Protest
On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released its decision denying Patriot Group International, Inc.'s (PGI) protest over a Department of the Air Force task order award to PAE Applied Technologies LLC (Amentum). The task order, issued under a Counter Narcotics and Global Threats Operations IDIQ contract, supported counterdrug, counter-organized crime, and counterterrorism missions. PGI alleged that the agency conducted misleading and coercive discussions, unreasonably evaluated proposals, and failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. However, the GAO found no merit in these claims.
PGI contended that discussions about its proposed professional compensation were misleading and coercive. Specifically, PGI argued that its labor rates were realistic and that the agency improperly influenced changes to its proposal. The GAO disagreed, finding that the Air Force raised valid concerns about PGI's unrealistically low labor rates and their compliance with FAR provision 52.222-46, which addresses professional employee compensation. The agency's inquiries left PGI with the discretion to decide how to revise its pricing, and the GAO determined that the discussions were accurate, fair, and in compliance with procurement regulations.
Another key issue was the evaluation of PGI’s technical proposal. PGI argued that it deserved additional strengths for its comprehensive training programs, proprietary analytical techniques, and highly qualified personnel. The GAO concluded that PGI’s proposal merely met, rather than exceeded, the solicitation’s requirements. The agency’s decision to refrain from assigning strengths was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, which defined strengths as features that would provide significant, demonstrable benefits to the government.
PGI also criticized the agency for failing to consider Amentum’s alleged performance issues under the incumbent contract. The GAO dismissed this argument as legally insufficient because the solicitation did not include past performance as an evaluation criterion. Instead, the evaluation was focused exclusively on technical merit and price. The GAO emphasized that agencies are bound by the terms of the solicitation and cannot introduce criteria not included in the evaluation plan.
Lastly, PGI challenged the best-value tradeoff decision, asserting that it was flawed due to errors in the evaluation process. The GAO rejected this claim, noting that the best-value determination was supported by a rational comparison of the proposals. Amentum’s technical proposal, which earned higher ratings under the technical approach and mission understanding subfactor, was reasonably selected over PGI’s despite a slightly higher price. The GAO reiterated that agencies have broad discretion in making tradeoff decisions, as long as they are rational and consistent with the solicitation.
This decision reinforces critical lessons for contractors competing in federal procurements. Offerors must not only meet solicitation requirements but aim to exceed them in demonstrable ways to earn higher technical ratings. Additionally, when engaging in discussions, contractors must address agency concerns strategically, as such exchanges are often pivotal in shaping evaluations. Finally, the case highlights the importance of thoroughly understanding solicitation terms and ensuring that proposals align with specified evaluation criteria.
Disclaimer: This blog post is based on publicly available information and does not guarantee accuracy. It is not intended to provide legal advice or establish any legal relationship. For specific guidance, consult a qualified professional.
