GAO denies EY protest over Army's corrective action in $250M contract
Gettyimages.com/Eugene Mymrin
By
Nick Wakeman
The Government Accountability Office denies some parts of the protest and dismisses others, while affirming an agency’s discretion to make revisions.
The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Ernst & Young over the scope of corrective action in a $250 million Army financial management contract, clearing the way for the agency to complete its re-evaluation and make a new award decision.
The Army originally awarded the contract to Guidehouse in April for accounting, auditing and change management support for the Army Financial Improvement program. Ernst & Young, the incumbent contractor, filed a protest that led to a corrective action.
The Army agreed to re-evaluate proposals and make a new award decision. As the Army was implementing its corrective action, Guidehouse informed the agency that one of its key personnel was no longer available and would need to be replaced.
The Army then opened discussions allowing both offerors to substitute unavailable key personnel and make corresponding — but limited — proposal revisions.
EY filed a new protest arguing the Army's approach was too restrictive because it only allowed revisions to address unavailable key personnel rather than permitting wholesale proposal changes.
But GAO has ruled against EY, finding the Army acted reasonably in limiting revisions to aspects of proposals "materially impacted" by key personnel substitutions. In that decision unsealed Friday, GAO said agencies have discretion over the scope of proposal revisions during corrective action as long as the limitations are reasonable.
GAO dismissed a separate portion of EY's protest because the firm filed its challenge more than 10 days after learning of the issues. EY was challenging the Army's failure to amend the solicitation due to alleged changes in requirements.
GAO's regulations require solicitation challenges to be filed within 10 days when no closing time for revised proposals has been established.
This decision sends two clear messages: agencies have flexibility to limit revisions during corrective action and protesters cannot wait beyond the 10-day window after learning of an issue they see as worth bringing up to GAO.
GAO issued its decision Sept. 26, but the document's public release was delayed by the government shutdown.