Protesting Disparate Treatment During Proposal Evaluations

September 11, 2025 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

It is a fundamental tenet of government contracts that procuring agencies treat all offerors equally. In this regard, adjudicative forums have long held that procuring agencies must provide all offerors with a common basis for preparing and submitting proposals. Such equal treatment necessarily requires the government to evaluate proposals of all offerors impartially and evenhandedly against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, once the evaluation is complete, agencies must adequately document their award decision, which should reflect the equal application of the stated criteria to all proposals. If an agency disparately evaluates offerors with respect to the same solicitation requirements, it may be subject to a post-award protest. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews protests alleging disparate treatment by examining the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation decision was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation factors provided in the request for proposals (RFP). The GAO will sustain the protest and typically recommend a reevaluation if it determines that the agency treated the offerors’ proposals disparately or unequally, such as by evaluating the protester’s proposal using a stricter standard than the awardee’s proposal.

In B-402602, a bid protest decision issued on June 17, 2010, the GAO sustained a protest alleging disparate treatment of offerors during the evaluation. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had issued the underlying RFP for the construction of a radiology imaging center, including a room for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont. The RFP contemplated a best value award on a tradeoff basis under the past performance, management approach, and price factors. The RFP advised offerors that both experience and past performance would be evaluated under the past performance factor. Additionally, the offerors were informed that the agency would consider the experience and past performance of major subcontractors. In evaluating the past performance factor, the VA noted that while the protester’s proposal had identified a project of similar size, that project did not demonstrate the protester’s experience with respect to the construction of an MRI room. The agency also noted that the protester’s proposal included copies of proposals of its subcontractors to demonstrate the MRI room construction experience. In part due to these reasons, the VA assigned the protester’s proposal an unacceptable rating for the past performance factor.

Meanwhile, in evaluating the past performance factor of the awardee’s proposal, the agency noted that the awardee had demonstrated specialized experience involving the construction of MRI rooms. The source selection authority determined that the awardee did not provide proposals from any subcontractors. The source selection decision document also specifically noted that the awardee’s proposal was the only one with specific experience in MRI construction. With respect to the past performance factor, the awardee’s proposal was rated as acceptable with moderate risk. As a result, the awardee’s proposal was determined to provide the best value to the government even though the protester had submitted a lower-priced proposal.

During the post-award protest, the protester pointed to the fact that the main difference between general clinic construction and an imaging center construction contemplated by the RFP was that the latter required the shielding of radiology rooms. The protester asserted that the shielding involved specialized construction work that a general contractor, including the awardee, did not perform itself. In other words, the protester alleged that although the awardee’s proposal did not include a quotation from the subcontractor, the awardee would still require a subcontractor to perform the shielding work. Therefore, the protester claimed that the agency treated it disparately when it failed to consider the experience of its subcontractor that would perform the specialized shielding work.

The GAO agreed with the protester, noting that the VA treated the protester’s proposal disparately and did not reasonably conduct the evaluation in accordance with RFP requirements and stated factors. Specifically, the GAO found that it was unreasonable for the VA to note in the source selection decision document that the awardee was the only offeror with specialized MRI rooms construction experience. The protester had proposed an experienced subcontractor to perform the shielding work, and the RFP specifically advised the offerors that the agency would consider the experience and past performance of subcontractors. Furthermore, the record reflected that the protester had identified the same subcontractor in its proposal as the specialty subcontractor used by the awardee in two of its construction projects for the VA. Significantly, the awardee had received credit for these projects, whereas the protester was denied similar credit for the past performance and experience of the same shielding subcontractor. Under these circumstances, the GAO concluded that the VA did not reasonably evaluate the two proposals and, in effect, treated the two offerors disparately. Consequently, the protest was sustained, and the GAO recommended that the VA reevaluate the proposals and, if necessary, make a new source selection decision.

It is a basic principle of federal procurement law that agencies treat offerors equally when conducting evaluations. Offerors that suspect disparate treatment in the evaluation of their proposals should request a debriefing and file their post-award protests in a timely manner. It is often the case that once an offeror files their protest at the GAO, the agency submits documents that contain information concerning disparate treatment either with the agency report or before the report is filed. In such cases, the protester should carefully review the new information and file any supplemental protests within the 10-day window after the receipt of the new information. If the agency provides the new information regarding disparate treatment in the agency report, protesters may file their supplemental protests together with their comments on the agency report. However, protesters should be mindful that when the information about disparate treatment is received before the agency report is filed, they have 10 days from the receipt of new information in which to file any supplemental protests. By understanding the rules concerning disparate treatment of offerors and timely filing their protests upon receiving information that indicates their proposals were treated disparately, protesters can be better positioned to challenge the disparate treatment of their proposals during evaluations.

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

Protesting Adjectival Ratings Derived from a Mechanical Counting of Proposal Strengths and Weaknesses

October 5, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

When evaluating proposals received in response to competitive procurements, the government may utilize a variety of techniques to ensure it obtains best value depending on the specific circumstances of the acquisition. In such procurements involving any one or a combination of source selection approaches, government evaluators often assign strengths and weaknesses to various aspects of the proposals to justify the government’s tradeoff decisions. A strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that improves the probability of successful performance. Meanwhile, a weakness could be a defect in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. Notably, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(d)(3) requires agencies to discuss significant weaknesses with offerors in the competitive ranges. However, not all strengths and weaknesses are created equal, and evaluators may not derive adjectival ratings from a mechanical count of the strengths and weaknesses alone. In other words, the government must qualitatively assess proposals based on the stated criteria in the solicitation when assigning adjectival ratings in competitive procurements. Additionally, agencies must adequately document their rationale so that a bid protest adjudicative forum such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has sufficient basis to review the underlying evaluation decision. Should the government assign adjectival ratings on a mechanical counting of strengths and weaknesses alone or fail to adequately document its evaluation rationale, the resulting award may be protested.

Protesting Lack of Meaningful Discussions

October 17, 2024 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

When conducting procurements along the best-value continuum, federal agencies may engage in discussions with offerors, leading them into areas of their proposals that require modification, amplification, or explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that such discussions be meaningful. Specifically, FAR § 15.306(d)(3) requires that when conducting discussions, the government agency, at a minimum, advise an offeror of its deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Notably, exchanges with offerors prior to the establishment of a competitive range that are merely conducted to enhance the government’s understanding of proposals and not to cure proposal deficiencies are not discussions. Offerors may not materially alter their proposals during such exchanges, and the government is not required to discuss all deficiencies or weaknesses. However, when communications rise to the level of discussions, the agency must ensure that the discussions are, in fact, meaningful and lead the offeror into proposal areas requiring modification, amplification, or explanation. Thus, when the government fails to provide meaningful discussions, impacted offerors may file a bid protest, challenging the adequacy of the discussions.

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.

Protesting Price Reasonableness Evaluations

May 29, 2025 Sareesh Rawat, Esq.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires contracting officers (COs) to purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. In determining price reasonableness, the procuring agency’s primary concern is typically whether the offeror’s quoted prices are too high. Generally, adequate competition between proposals received in response to the solicitation establishes the reasonableness of pricing. However, depending on the procurement, the government may employ various other price analysis techniques to establish price reasonableness. Such techniques may include comparing proposed prices to historical prices paid, competitive published price lists, an independent government cost estimate (IGCE), or prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items or services. Unsuccessful offerors may challenge the procuring agency’s price reasonableness evaluation techniques in a post-award protest. In such protests, the manner and depth of the government’s price reasonableness evaluation is typically within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion. However, while it is the agency’s prerogative to select an appropriate method for evaluating price reasonableness, the chosen method must provide a reasonable basis for assessing the different proposed pricing under the competing proposals.

Protesting Disparate Treatment During Proposal Evaluations

TILLIT LAW Bid Protest Insights