Government agencies may issue multiple solicitations for similar or related procurements, with the same offerors responding to each. In such situations, each procurement stands on its own, and the evaluation ratings a procuring agency assigns under one solicitation are not probative of the alleged unreasonableness of the ratings under another. Thus, contractors who submit proposals under multiple similar procurements are not entitled to expect identical ratings to those of past procurements, even when their current proposal is substantially similar to their previously evaluated proposal. Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decisions have consistently recognized that, due to the involvement of both objective and subjective judgments, it is not unusual for individual evaluators or groups of evaluators to reach different conclusions and assign different scores or ratings when evaluating proposals. As a result, it is proper for the procuring agency to assign different ratings even when evaluating identical or substantially similar proposals submitted by the same contractor, if significant time has passed between their submissions or if different evaluators are responsible for the evaluations. In such cases, the GAO will not sustain a protest alleging an agency’s failure to reconcile its different evaluations.

In B-423502.3; B-423502.4, a decision issued on January 30, 2026, the GAO denied a protest challenging the government’s evaluation for reaching different conclusions in a related procurement because the procurements were conducted under different solicitations and evaluated by different source selection evaluation boards. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the underlying best-value solicitation for preventative and corrective maintenance services for access control points at 19 Army installations in the northeast region. The USACE issued an award for a little over $35.5 million, following which the protester challenged the agency’s evaluation for lacking consistency with its past technical approach evaluations. Specifically, the protester contended that the agency’s evaluation for the present procurement differed from its evaluations under a previously issued related RFQ competed in fiscal year (FY) 2024, as well as from other access control point requirements for other regions in the country. The protester took the position that past evaluations should be reconciled, as prior solicitations for access control point requirements for the northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest regions were substantially equivalent to each other and to the current solicitation.

The protester argued that it had previously submitted quotations for the access control point requirements for all four regions and received the same two significant strengths and one strength for its technical approach in each procurement. Similarly, under the FY 2024 RFQ for the same northeast region, the protester had received two significant strengths and one strength for its technical approach. Citing the agency’s past evaluations and its own substantially similar, if not identical, technical solution, the protester argued that the agency had unreasonably evaluated its present quotation because it had only assigned it one significant strength under the technical approach factor. The protester maintained that had the agency conducted a reasonable evaluation, it would have assigned the protester the two previously assigned significant strengths in addition to the one significant strength it received under the current evaluation. The protester argued that, with three significant strengths, it would likely have received a rating of “Outstanding” for the technical approach factor, the same as the awardee. Meanwhile, the agency maintained that its evaluation was reasonable because the current procurement was conducted under a different solicitation than the FY 2024 RFQ and the solicitations for the other three regions, and it was not required to reconcile different evaluations.

The GAO agreed with the agency and began its analysis by noting that the current RFQ was conducted under a separate solicitation from the FY 2024 RFQ. Similarly, the access control point requirements for the other three regions were conducted under separate solicitations, distinct from the current RFQ, with each procurement having its own evaluators and source-selection authority. Moreover, the current RFQ was issued more than a year after the FY 2024 RFQ and had a shorter performance period. Since each procurement stands on its own and an agency’s evaluation ratings under a previous solicitation are not probative of the alleged unreasonableness of the evaluation ratings under a later solicitation, the GAO found nothing unreasonable in the USACE’s evaluation of the protester’s technical approach factor. The GAO rejected the protester’s argument that the source-selection evaluation board for the FY 2024 procurement was the same as that for the current procurement, based on the presence of two individuals who served on both evaluations. Instead, the GAO found that the evaluation boards and the source selection authorities (SSAs) for the two procurements differed, as other individuals also served on the boards and the SSAs. Furthermore, in addition to the differences in the solicitations, a significant time had passed between their issuances. Accordingly, USACE was not required to reconcile any alleged differences between its evaluations, and the protest was denied.

The GAO has consistently held that each individual procurement stands on its own and a procuring agency’s evaluation ratings under a previous solicitation have no bearing on the reasonableness, or lack thereof, of the ratings it assigns under a later solicitation. This is true, even when the procurements are related or conducted for substantially similar requirements. Since evaluations involve both subjective and objective judgments, it is not considered out of the ordinary for evaluators to assign different scores or ratings, or to reach different conclusions, when evaluating proposals for related requirements. Notably, a limited exception to these general rules exists when the same source selection board and authority evaluate identical proposals under a single solicitation but assign materially different ratings without explanation. However, apart from such limited and somewhat unusual circumstances, the GAO will not typically sustain a protest challenging the reasonableness of a procuring agency’s evaluation for its failure to reconcile its ratings assigned under different solicitations, as it is well established that each procurement stands on its own.

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.