Posted

Corrective Action Doesn’t Mean a Do-Over: GAO Okays Narrow Scope of Proposal Revisions

by

The Mission Essential Group, LLC (MEG) protested the scope of corrective action by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) following a previous protest involving a linguist support services procurement. In The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-421745.4 (April 2, 2025​), MEG claimed that the agency’s approach, which allowed only limited proposal revisions tailored to specific evaluation notices (ENs), was improperly restrictive and unfairly benefited the awardee, Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR).

The Decision
GAO denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. Corrective Action May Be Narrow in Scope: GAO affirmed that an agency may reasonably limit discussions and proposal revisions during corrective action to only those areas affected by prior evaluation errors. The corrective action need not reopen the entire procurement​.
  2. WWLR’s Management Plan Fix Was Required and Did Not Constitute Disparate Treatment: SOCOM identified an inconsistency in WWLR’s management plan concerning its WOSB subcontracting percentages and permitted WWLR to revise that aspect of its proposal. MEG argued that this was unfair because it was only permitted to revise its price proposal. GAO disagreed, determining that the agency was obligated to allow WWLR to correct this deficiency and concluding that the issue should have been raised by SOCOM in prior discussions​​. GAO further noted that MEG was not disadvantaged because MEG’s own ENs were broader and offered greater flexibility to revise its proposal​.
  3. No Obligation to Flag High Price: GAO also rejected MEG’s claim that the agency unreasonably failed to mention that its price was $50 million higher than its competitors during discussions. GAO stated that the FAR allows, but does not require, agencies to raise price competitiveness concerns unless the price is deemed unreasonable.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Corrective Action Doesn’t Mean a Full Re-Do: Agencies can limit proposal revisions to specific areas tied to past evaluation errors.
  2. Unequal ENs Are Not Unequal Treatment: As long as every offeror gets a fair chance to address its own proposal’s weaknesses, different ENs are acceptable.
  3. Agencies Can Engage Selectively: Agencies are not required to reopen discussions across the board. Rather, they can focus only on deficiencies they failed to raise previously.
  4. High Price ≠ Discussion Topic: Unless an agency deems a price unreasonably high, it is not required to warn the offeror about being undercut.