Catalyst Solutions, LLC (B-423269.2)

Catalyst Solutions, LLC (B-423269.2)
Photo by Michael Afonso / Unsplash

You should not care.

Category: Seaport-E, price realism, corrective action

Date: 23 April 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/880/878204.pdf

Catalyst Solutions, LLC, an SDVOSB, protested the Marine Corps’ corrective action in a Seaport IDIQ task order procurement for program management support for the Expeditionary Radars portfolio. The USMC had originally awarded the task order to Alexandria Insights, the higher-rated and higher-priced offeror. Catalyst’s initial protest challenged, among other things, the agency’s evaluation and justification for paying a 52 percent premium; in response, USMC took corrective action—amending the solicitation to include an explicit price realism evaluation. Catalyst’s follow-on protest argued the agency’s corrective action was overly broad because price realism had not been specifically challenged in its first protest, and thus should not have been included in the corrective measures.

GAO reaffirmed that agencies have broad latitude in determining the scope of corrective action intended to address procurement flaws. The agency’s identification of drastically low pricing among quotes created legitimate risk that an awardee could not deliver as proposed, justifying a new price realism evaluation even though this specific issue was not in Catalyst’s original protest. GAO noted that the agency’s actions were within its authority and supported by procurement integrity principles—especially as the adverse business impact of exposed pricing was outweighed by the need for a fair competition and realistic pricing.

The protest was denied because the USMC’s corrective action was judged reasonable and within its discretion given the identified risks.

Digest

Protest challenging the scope of the agency’s corrective action that includes amending the solicitation to include a provision for a price realism evaluation is denied where the agency acted within its discretion to reasonably determine what corrective action is appropriate to remedy a flaw in the procurement process.