Close
Updated:

Unsigned SF-33? GAO Says That’s Not a Dealbreaker

by

    • In Noblis MSD, LLC, B- 423599 (September 11, 2025), Noblis MSD, the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a technical support services contract to Solute, Inc. Noblis raised several arguments, including that Solute’s proposal was noncompliant because it lacked a signed Standard Form (SF) 33, that the agency unreasonably evaluated past performance and that the award decision ignored known negative performance information. GAO denied the protest in full, finding that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and supported by the record, and offering helpful reminders about intent to be bound, evaluators’ discretion, the “too close at hand” doctrine, and the use of sworn declarations.

    The Decision
    GAO denied the protest, ruling that:

    1. Unsigned SF-33 Was Not Fatal: Solute failed to sign the required SF-33 form. Normally, that’s game over. But GAO found that Solute’s signed cover letter, which included an express statement of assent to all solicitation terms and a commitment that the offer was valid for 240 days, was sufficient to demonstrate intent to be bound. Solute also completed all other fields on the SF-33, including listing an authorized signer (who was the same individual who signed the cover letter). GAO found that the lack of a signature was a minor informality and could be waived without prejudicing the procurement.
    2. Organizational Experience Evaluation Was Reasonable: Noblis argued that Solute’s “Outstanding” rating was irrational, particularly in the fourth key area (application integration and development), where the agency noted certain risks. GAO acknowledged that evaluators identified some weaknesses, but also found substantial strengths across all areas and determined that overall performance risk remained low. GAO reiterated that source selection officials have discretion to weigh risks and strengths, and found no error in the Navy’s judgment.
    3. GAO Sides with the Agency on Past Performance Credibility: Noblis claimed that the agency ignored adverse past performance information allegedly “too close at hand” to overlook including verbal statements from an agency official indicating dissatisfaction with Solute’s prior work. However, the agency provided sworn declarations from two officials, including the individual identified by Noblis, affirming that Solute’s past performance was satisfactory and that no work was removed due to performance issues. GAO found no evidence that evaluators were personally aware of any negative information, which is a key requirement for “too close at hand” arguments to succeed.
    4. Best-Value Tradeoff Was Properly Documented: Noblis further argued that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) failed to look behind the adjectival ratings and give weight to Noblis’ strengths. GAO found that the SSA explicitly acknowledged risks in Solute’s proposal, weighed those against Noblis’ strengths and reasonably concluded that the proposals were essentially equal on non-cost factors which made Solute’s lower cost the deciding factor. GAO reiterated that adjectival ratings are merely guides, and that agencies are not required to assign numerical parity to determine technical equivalence.

    Key Takeaways for Contractors

    1. Minor Signature Issues May Be Waivable: If your SF-33 is unsigned, it’s not necessarily fatal. But this is true only if the proposal includes clear, signed statements of assent and validity, and there’s no competitive prejudice.
    2. Disagreement Isn’t a Basis for Protest: GAO will not second-guess subjective evaluation judgments unless they are clearly unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. A protester’s belief that its proposal deserved higher marks is not enough.
    3. “Too Close at Hand” Requires Firsthand Evaluator Knowledge: Negative past performance must be known to someone actually involved in the evaluation. Allegations tied to informal conversations, unsupported by the record, won’t carry the day.
    4. Signed Declarations Can Be Decisive: When faced with conflicting narratives, GAO gives substantial weight to sworn declarations from agency officials, especially if the protester offers no compelling counter-evidence.