Each Procurement Stands on its Own

This blog has previously discussed denied protests where the protester has argued that an agency failed to evaluate in accordance with a similar but previous procurement.  Now comes Low Voltage Wiring, Ltd., B-423502 et al, Jan. 30, 2026, where the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) denied another protest because the agency reached different conclusions in a related procurement, and the procurements were conducted under different solicitations and were evaluated by different evaluation teams.

Lov Voltage protested the evaluation of offers for an Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) solicitation for maintenance services for access control points (“ACP”) at 19 Army installations in one region, arguing that the evaluation unreasonably and inconsistency evaluated its technical quotation.  Low Voltage stated that the evaluation was not consistent with the agency’s evaluations under the previous solicitation as well as other prior solicitations for the ACP maintenance requirements in other regions. Low Voltage alleged that these earlier solicitations were “substantively equivalent to each other and the instant solicitation.”

GAO stated that “[i]t is well established that each procurement stands on its own, and an agency’s evaluation ratings under another solicitation are not probative of the alleged unreasonableness of the evaluation ratings under the solicitation at issue.

The agency noted that there were significant differences in this RFQ that made it different from the earlier solicitations; e.g.:

·       Required different submissions

·       Required the inclusion of different statements in the quotation

·       Was administered by different personnel

·       Different performance periods

·       The source selection official who was the contracting officer in this procurement did not serve in that capacity in the prior solicitation.

The GAO concluded that the Corps was not required to evaluate this procurement under the previous RFQ or other solicitations.  Each was conducted under separate solicitation, and each procurement had its own source selection evaluators and source selection official, and further, that the evaluation criteria were different.  Because each procurement stands on its own, there was no reason to think that an agency’s evaluation ratings under another solicitation were probative of the alleged unreasonableness of the evaluation ratings given under this solicitation.

Takeaway.  Each procurement stands on its own.  While there may be similarities, even if there are two identical solicitations (unlikely), there are likely to be other reasons why an agency’s evaluation under the first solicitation will not be probative of an unreasonable evaluation of a different solicitation for the same reasons found above.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.