The protester challenged the agency’s issuance of a solicitation amendment that restructured pricing and the agency’s subsequent determination that the protester’s price was unreasonable. The protester argued the amendment unfairly changed pricing on short notice and that the agency improperly used undisclosed benchmarks to eliminate its quotation. GAO dismissed the protest, holding that challenges to solicitation terms must be filed before the next due date for quotations, and that the protester could not show competitive prejudice because it would not have been in line for award even absent the alleged errors—the awardee submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation under a solicitation that prohibited tradeoffs.

Raven Advisory, LLC, GAO, B-424405; B-424405.2

• Background – The U.S. Special Operations Command issued a solicitation for austere medical technician training. The agency used simplified procedures for commercial services under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. Two vendors submitted quotations. After receiving initial quotations, the agency issued a second amendment restructuring pricing from a per-course to a per-student basis, giving vendors 48 hours to submit revised quotations. Both quotations were rated technically acceptable, but the protester’s price nearly doubled to $8.69 million while the awardee’s stayed at $4.68 million. The agency awarded to the lower-priced vendor, and the protester filed this protest.
• Untimely Amendment Challenge – The protester argued the agency unreasonably restructured pricing, provided only a 48-hour turnaround, and allowed no vendor questions—all of which allegedly advantaged the incumbent. The protester tried to frame its challenge as targeting the agency’s later price evaluation rather than the amendment itself, but GAO wasn’t buying it. All the challenged features—the pricing change, tight deadline, and lack of Q&A—were apparent when the amendment was issued. Because the protester waited until April 10 to file, well after the March 19 revised quotation deadline, GAO dismissed these grounds as untimely.
• No Competitive Prejudice on Price Evaluation – The protester argued the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by using an undisclosed independent government cost estimate and historical pricing data to find its price unreasonable. Here, the solicitation expressly prohibited tradeoffs between price and non-price factors, effectively requiring award to the lowest-priced technically acceptable vendor. Both quotations were technically acceptable, and the awardee’s price was lower than the protester’s both before and after the amendment. So even if GAO agreed the price reasonableness analysis was flawed, the protester still wouldn’t be in line for award.

The protester was represented by Conan J. Higgins of TSI Legal Enterprises, PC. The government was represented by Erika L. Whelan Retta, Aaron J. Weaver, and Jerome P. Duggan of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.