Speculative Protest Allegations Not Supported by Evidence

As noted in an earlier Blog, “Clarifying Government Accountability Office Pleading Standards” (March 2025), the submission of credible allegations supported by evidence is essential in submitting any GAO protest. The submission of bare speculative assertions will cause a protest to be dismissed. GAO clarified its pleading standard last year, and is now applying it as follows:

[Government Accountability Office (“GAO”] Bid Protest Regulations require that protests include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of protest and that the grounds be legally sufficient. 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) and (f). This requirement contemplates that protesters will provide, at a minimum, credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester’s claim of improper agency action. Protesters must provide more than a bare allegation; the allegation must be supported by some explanation and evidence that establishes the likelihood the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action. (Emphasis added)

Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B-43546 and B-423456.2, August 5, 2025.

In Sigo Valiant JV, LLC, B-424103, Feb. 24, 2026, the GAO dismissed a protest where the allegation was speculative and was based on unsupported evidence. Sigo alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had made an award for construction of new burial land at the Marion National Cemetery in Indiana even though the awardee’s bid contained a misrepresentation that the awardee would comply with a subcontracting limitation provision. The allegations are based on a declaration submitted by the President of Sigo Enterprises, which stated as follows:

[A]n unnamed representative of an unidentified potential subcontractor that the protester worked with on its bid contacted Sigo Valiant on September 12 to discuss this procurement…[T]his individual told Sigo he met with a firm (“Company Y”) that represented it would be working on the Marion National Cemetery contract. Company Y informed the unnamed individual that Company Y had been responsible for all bidding activities on [awardee’s] behalf, would be acting as a “super sub” for [awardee] and would be performing the actual construction work for the project. (Emphasis added)

GAO noted that the declaration relies on a conversation with an unnamed individual from an unidentified firm, which in turn relies on that individual’s recollections of a meeting between himself and an alleged subcontractor that is not in the procurement record. The GAO explained that “such third-hand information lacks both specificity and any indicia of reliability” and do not demonstrate that the awardee had falsely certified that it would comply with the solicitation’s subcontracting clause. Furthermore, absent credible evidence that a firm would be a “super sub” that performs the actual construction work would not necessarily be inconsistent with the required share of the contract scope.

Finding no credible evidence that the awardee intended to subcontract to Company Y in excess of the solicitation’s limitations on subcontracting, “Sigo Valiant’s bare assertions, without more, fail to state a sufficient factual or legal bases for protest, … and are dismissed” citing 4 CFR § 21.5(f) of the bid protest rules.

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.