Demonstrating Competitive Prejudice in Protests Involving Waived Material Requirements

July 23, 2026 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

Generally, when a government contract solicitation sets forth requirements in specific terms, interested offerors are required to meet them precisely. This is especially true for material requirements which must be satisfied in order for an offeror’s proposal to be considered technically acceptable for award. However, in certain limited circumstances the procuring agency may relax or waive material solicitation requirements in making an award, if the proposed solution meets the government’s needs and there is no prejudice to the other offerors. In such cases, it is insufficient for a protester seeking to challenge the government’s waiver of material solicitation requirements to merely show that it would have been next in line for award, or that the awardee would have been unsuccessful but for the waiver. Rather, the existence of competitive prejudice is established by demonstrating that the protester would have altered its proposal to its advantage or could have done something different to improve its chances for award had it been afforded the opportunity to submit a response to the changed solicitation requirements.

In B-423821.2; B-423821.3, a decision issued on April 20, 2026, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest challenging the agency’s waiver of material solicitation requirements in making the award because the protester failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a $43,712,124 task order under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for operation, maintenance, and facility management services at various Defense Health Agency (DHA) facilities in Germany, Belgium, and Italy. For the portion of the work to be performed in Italy, the request for proposals (RFP) required offerors to register for an anti-mafia screening white list. During discussions, the USACE reiterated the white list requirement, explaining that offerors were required to initiate the registration process with a local government official known as a prefetto before submitting their proposals. Prospective offerors were advised that they had to include evidence of having initiated the registration process with their proposal submissions.

In the GAO protest that followed the task order award, the protester asserted, among other arguments, that the awardee’s proposal had failed to satisfy the white list registration requirement. According to the protester, the awardee had failed to comply with this material solicitation requirement because it did not file with the prefetto until the day following its final proposal submission. To demonstrate competitive prejudice stemming from the agency’s decision to relax the registration requirement, the protester argued that if the agency had found the awardee’s proposal unacceptable, it would be next in line for award. Notably, the protester did not explain how the agency’s failure to enforce the white list registration requirement strictly impacted its own proposal or what it would have done differently had it known of the potential waiver. Meanwhile, the agency argued in relevant part that the white list registration requirement was not material and that even if it was, the protester could not demonstrate competitive prejudice.

In its decision denying the protest, the GAO explained that even if it assumed the white list requirement was material and that the awardee had failed to meet it, the protest could not be sustained because the awardee failed to demonstrate a meaningful possibility of competitive prejudice. In this regard, the protester had failed to explain how it would have altered its own proposal or otherwise approached the procurement differently had it known that the USACE would not strictly enforce the white list requirement. Similarly, the protester made no effort to explain how its own competitive position, independent from that of the awardee’s, was meaningfully impacted by the awardee filing its registration packet with the prefetto a day late. Consequently, the GAO denied the protest, noting that being next in line for award if the awardee’s proposal is found unacceptable is insufficient to demonstrate competitive prejudice when an agency has waived or relaxed a material solicitation requirement.

Offerors must typically meet material requirements for their proposals to be deemed technically acceptable and eligible for award. Yet, the procuring agency may sometimes elect to relax or waive material solicitation requirements in making an award. For the waiver to be appropriate, the winning solution that fails to satisfy the relevant material requirements must nevertheless meet the government’s needs. In addition, the government’s waiver decision must not prejudice the other offerors. In this context, the relevant inquiry concerning competitive prejudice is not whether the protester would have been next in line for award had the awardee’s proposal been found unacceptable. Instead, the protester must establish that it would have changed its proposal to its competitive advantage or done something differently to alter its own competitive posture had it been allowed to respond to the altered requirements. Ultimately, even though the relevant inquiry is distinct, as with other GAO protests, demonstrating competitive prejudice remains essential in protests involving waiver of material solicitation requirements.

This Bid Protest Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

Post-Award Protests Involving Awardee’s Failure to Satisfy Material Solicitation Requirements

November 22, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

Bid protest adjudicative forums such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have consistently held that a proposal that fails to meet a material solicitation requirement is considered technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis of an award. When included in the solicitation as mandatory, a prospective contractor’s adherence to the government’s small business participation requirements may be considered a material solicitation requirement. In such solicitations, an adequate response to a mandatory small business participation requirement not only addresses the requirement in the relevant proposal section but is also consistent across all sections of the offeror’s proposal, including its pricing. When an offeror fails to adequately respond to a solicitation’s mandatory small business participation requirement, its proposal contains a material defect. Such a proposal defect is typically only correctable when the government opens discussions, permitting offerors to submit revised proposals. Thus, if the procuring agency fails to open discussions to resolve the material proposal defect, it may not then properly award the contract to an offeror that failed to meet the solicitation’s mandatory requirements.

Unusual and Compelling Urgency Exception to Full and Open Competition Requirements

April 10, 2025 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires full and open competition in federal procurement. However, under certain circumstances, exceptions to full and open competition may apply, and the procuring agency may conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis or by otherwise limiting competition. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302 provides seven limited exceptions to full and open competition. Among those exceptions, FAR 6.302-2 permits using other than full and open competition in procurements with unusual and compelling urgency. As one might expect, the exception is construed narrowly, permitting the agency’s use of other than full and open competition only in situations when the government would be seriously injured unless it limits its sources. Even when foregoing full and open competition by citing an unusual and compelling urgency, the procuring agency must still request offers from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. Additionally, when making contract awards under this authority, agencies must support their decision with justifications and approvals (J&As). In situations where the preparation of a J&A before the award would cause an undue delay to the acquisition, agencies may provide the J&As after the contract award.

Protesting Restrictions on Competition Based on Administrative Convenience

December 4, 2025 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires full and open competition in federal procurement unless one of the limited exceptions enumerated in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 6 applies. Meanwhile, the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program provides the government with a streamlined process for acquiring commonly used commercial supplies and services. These simplified procedures notwithstanding, CICA’s competition mandate applies to procurements conducted under the FSS program. In this regard, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously held that following the streamlined FSS procedures satisfies CICA’s competition requirements. It follows that when conflicting interpretations of a regulation governing competition in the FSS program are advanced, the interpretation consistent with the principles of CICA should prevail. One such long-recognized CICA principle provides that when concerns of administrative convenience or expediency are being weighed against ensuring full and open competition, the latter should be favored. Stated another way, mere administrative convenience or expediency should not provide a valid basis for restricting competition.

Challenging Waiver of First Article Testing Requirements

February 26, 2026 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

Government contracts often include first article testing (FAT) requirements to ensure the contractor can supply a product that meets the contract requirements for acceptance. Such contracts incorporate the clause at FAR 52.209-3 (Contractor Testing) or FAR 52.209-4 (Government Testing) to impose FAT requirements on the contractor. Both clauses allow the government to waive the FAT requirements where the contractor has previously furnished supplies of identical or similar items that the government has accepted. An improper waiver of the FAT requirements that is inconsistent with the relevant FAR clause may be grounds for protest. In such protests, it is the procuring agency’s burden to establish that its decision to waive the FAT requirements was reasonable and in accordance with applicable procurement law and regulation. In addition to prior successful performance, if the agency can demonstrate that the contractor in question previously received FAT approval for the same items being procured, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will typically not sustain the protest challenging the FAT waiver, unless the protester can present countervailing evidence that the item being supplied will not meet material solicitation requirements.

Demonstrating Competitive Prejudice in Protests Involving Waived Material Requirements

TILLIT LAW Bid Protest Insights