“Too Close at Hand” Doctrine

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.

In Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., B-423190, et al., Mar. 3, 2025, IMTAS protested its exclusion from a competition run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after the agency rejected its proposal based on a $0.01 discrepancy in one labor rate listed on its pricing template. The error—a clear scrivener’s mistake—did not impact the actual quoted labor rate or total evaluated price. IMTAS argued that the agency should have either ignored or clarified the harmless typo. GAO agreed the exclusion was unreasonable—but ultimately denied the protest because IMTAS failed to demonstrate prejudice. The case also touched on the limits of the “too close at hand” doctrine in past performance and technical evaluations.

Articles Posted in “Too Close at Hand” Doctrine

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

GAO Finds Exclusion Over $0.01 Scrivener’s Error Unreasonable, But Denies Protest for Lack of Prejudice