Science Applications International Corporation (B-423532; B-423532.2)

You should not care.

Category: Competitive range, discussions, prejudice

Date: 28 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423532%2Cb-423532.2

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) protested its exclusion from the competitive range under RFP No. FA7014-25-R-0001 for modeling and support simulation services, issued by US Air Force. SAIC argued the Air Force unreasonably failed to fully evaluate its proposal before making the competitive range determination and challenged the agency’s decision to enter discussions with only the top-ranked offeror—despite that proposal having an incomplete price volume—effectively eliminating the remainder of the field, including SAIC.

Establishment of competitive range without full evaluation: SAIC challenged the agency’s process, arguing that under FAR 15.306(c)(1), all proposals must be evaluated prior to setting a competitive range. GAO found the agency’s solicitation unusually objective: technical scoring was based on pre-validated self-scores, which could only be decreased (not increased) by the agency. Thus, after validating the top proposal and confirming it outscored the others, further validation or detailed review of lower-scoring offers, including SAIC’s, would not alter the technical ranking.

Agency’s discretion to conduct discussions: The RFP authorized the agency to engage in discussions with one or more offerors at its discretion. The Air Force opted to discuss with the highest scoring offeror to remedy price volume deficiencies before considering the next-in-line. GAO found this discretion clearly outlined and lawfully exercised under the solicitation terms.

Prejudice: Even had the agency’s approach been found procedurally improper, SAIC could not have improved its position, because the solicitation fixed the technical score ceiling at self-scoring and did not allow upward adjustment.

Protest denied. GAO concluded the Air Force properly limited the competitive range based on validated technical rankings and the solicitation’s consistent instructions.

Digest

Protest that the agency unreasonably established a competitive range is denied where the record shows the agency established the competitive range in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and consistent with the results of the offeror’s self-scores.