The recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision denying Wits Solutions’ protest against the General Services Administration (GSA) highlights considerations for contractors competing in government-wide acquisition contracts like the OASIS+ program. This protest arose from GSA's decision to exclude Wits Solutions from consideration for the management and advisory domain of the OASIS+ small business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The dispute centered on whether Wits’ subcontractor arrangements met the solicitation’s requirements.

The GSA's OASIS+ program offers a multiple IDIQ contract to provide integrated services across various domains such as management and advisory, technical and engineering, and research and development. To compete, contractors were required to meet specific criteria, including size standards associated with each domain. Wits Solutions proposed to team with several subcontractors, including GrammaTech, a company that does not qualify as a small business under the size standards for the management and advisory domain. While Wits argued that GrammaTech was not proposed for that specific domain, GSA determined that the team arrangement disqualified Wits from being awarded that domain CLIN (contract line item number).

The GAO upheld GSA’s decision, emphasizing that the solicitation terms were clear. The RFP required that an offeror and all proposed subcontractors meet the size standards for each domain where the offeror sought an award. This evaluation was conducted at the overall contract level, rather than on a domain-by-domain basis. Wits' interpretation that size standards should apply only to subcontractors involved in a particular domain was deemed inconsistent with the solicitation language. The GAO also rejected Wits’ claim that its disclosures about GrammaTech’s limited role in its proposal altered the applicability of the requirements.

This decision underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to the explicit terms of solicitations. Contractors must recognize that RFP language governs how proposals will be evaluated, and any ambiguity or disagreement with those terms must be addressed before submitting a proposal. The GAO reiterated that offerors bear the responsibility of seeking clarification if solicitation terms appear ambiguous. Failing to do so before the proposal deadline precludes offerors from later contesting those terms.

For federal contractors, this case serves as a reminder of the criticality of compliance with team arrangement rules. Teaming arrangements, while beneficial for pooling expertise, can also introduce risks if all partners do not align with the solicitation’s requirements. The decision reinforces the principle that contractors must be vigilant when selecting team members and ensure that all parties meet the necessary criteria at every level of evaluation.

Additionally, the GAO’s ruling highlights the broader implications for contractors navigating small business set-aside programs. These programs aim to ensure fair competition, but they also come with stringent requirements. Contractors should be aware that non-compliance by any team member can jeopardize their eligibility, regardless of whether that team member is directly involved in a specific domain.

The GAO’s ruling also has implications for how federal agencies structure solicitations and conduct evaluations. By upholding GSA’s interpretation of the solicitation, the GAO reinforced the importance of consistency and fairness in evaluation criteria. Federal agencies must ensure that solicitation language is unambiguous and that evaluation methodologies are transparent and clearly communicated to all bidders.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be accurate. It does not constitute legal advice.