The Mission Essential Group, LLC (B-421745.4)

You should not care.

Category: Discussions, price

Date: 2 April 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421745.4

The Mission Essential Group, LLC, protested Air Force’s limited scope of discussions during corrective action under a linguist services procurement (RFP No. H92402-23-R-0002) administered by US Special Operations Command. The protester argued that limiting proposal revisions to the content of evaluation notices (ENs)—which varied among offerors—was unequal and unfair. It also challenged the agency’s failure to raise the protester’s comparatively high price during discussions. Notably, the corrective action was prompted by a prior protest regarding small business subcontracting plans.

Limited revision scope and tailored discussions: GAO upheld the agency’s discretion to restrict proposal revisions solely to aspects addressed in ENs, provided the action aligns with correcting previously identified evaluation flaws. GAO found no competitive prejudice in the variation of ENs, especially since the protester received broader revision latitude than its competitors.

Selective management plan correction: GAO affirmed the agency’s decision to allow only Worldwide Language Resources (WWLR) to revise its management plan due to a deficiency the agency previously failed to raise. This narrowly tailored fix corrected a procedural misstep and conformed with prior GAO precedent allowing discussions with only the impacted offeror.

High price not a deficiency: The protester’s price—34 percent higher than a competitor’s—was not deemed unreasonably high, and the agency was not obligated to raise that point during discussions. Contracting officers retain discretion under FAR 15.306(e)(3) when addressing price disparities in otherwise acceptable proposals.

GAO denied the protest, concluding the agency’s corrective action appropriately remedied earlier process errors and treated offerors fairly under the FAR.

Agencies may limit proposal revisions to specific issues when conducting targeted corrective action, and price disparities alone do not trigger a duty to raise pricing concerns in discussions.

Digest

Protest challenging the scope of agency corrective action taken in response to the protester’s prior protest is denied where the agency reasonably limited the scope of discussions to address only the issues that led the agency to take corrective action.