Scott Investigations and Research, LLC (B-423342)

You should not care.

Category: Timeliness, meaningful discussions

Date: 27 May 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423342

Scott Investigations & Research, LLC, protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s RFP for emergency-water drinking pouches, challenging both the solicitation’s restrictiveness and the agency’s conduct of discussions. Scott alleged that the sterilization requirements unreasonably limited competition (arguing only the winning vendor could comply) and objected to organoleptic evaluation criteria. Additionally, Scott contended that the agency denied it meaningful discussions and a further opportunity to revise its proposal and submit a compliant product demonstration model (PDM).

Untimely solicitation challenges: GAO dismissed Scott’s claims regarding the solicitation’s technical requirements and evaluation methods as untimely, because such objections must be filed prior to proposal submission.

Meaningful discussions and cut-off date: Scott’s proposal was initially rejected for failing to include a required PDM. During discussions, the agency explicitly notified Scott of all deficiencies and allowed for one proposal revision, consistent with FAR requirements. When Scott’s revised PDM was still unacceptable, GAO found no requirement for the agency to allow further revisions or continuous negotiations—especially since the deficiency emerged in the final revision, not the original proposal.

The protest was denied. GAO found the agency’s conduct aligned with regulation, holding that Scott’s missed challenge deadlines and the agency’s clear, consistent communication with offerors left no room for legitimate protest.

Digest

Protest that solicitation is restrictive of competition filed after the closing date for the receipt of proposals is dismissed as untimely. Discussions with protester were meaningful where agency notified protester of the areas in its proposal that failed to comply with the solicitation, established a common cut-off date for revised proposals, and indicated that no further opportunity to submit revisions would be provided. Agency is not required to reopen discussions to permit offeror to address deficiency first introduced in its final proposal revision.