Posted

Post Hoc Excuses Fall Flat: GAO Finds Evaluation Errors in Past Performance Evaluation and Best-Value Tradeoff

by

In Enviremedial Services, Inc., B-423552 (August 28, 2025), Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a facilities maintenance contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., alleging flaws in the agency’s price evaluation, past performance analysis and best-value tradeoff. While GAO dismissed ESI’s unbalanced pricing claim, it sustained the protest based on multiple errors and omissions in the past performance evaluation and the agency’s failure to meaningfully document its source selection rationale.

The Decision
GAO sustained the protest, ruling that:

  1. Unbalanced Pricing Allegation Dismissed: ESI alleged that BryMak’s line-item pricing was unbalanced because some items were priced higher and others lower than ESI’s. GAO dismissed the claim, finding that ESI failed to allege or support the idea that any of BryMak’s prices were significantly overstated or understated, which is a threshold requirement for an unbalanced pricing protest.
  2. Flawed Attribution of Past Performance: GAO sustained the protest after finding that the agency had improperly credited BryMak for past performance it did not perform. Specifically, the agency counted work performed by an affiliated company (BryMak Eagle Pro LLC) and a teaming partner (CBFS) toward BryMak’s record without adequate documentation or explanation. In one case, the agency claimed BryMak performed on contracts where the record clearly showed it did not. GAO gave little weight to the agency’s post hoc “typo” explanation, finding it inconsistent with the contemporaneous record.
  3. Use of Joint Venture Experience Was Unexplained: The agency also credited CBFS with “prime contractor” experience on a contract performed as part of a joint venture, but the record did not explain why the joint venture experience was attributable to CBFS, which is a requirement under GAO precedent. Because no documentation supported the agency’s evaluation of the reference contract, GAO found the evaluation unsupported.
  4. Best-Value Tradeoff Lacked Qualitative Comparison: GAO found that the agency’s best-value decision relied heavily on adjectival ratings and ignored meaningful differences in the scope and relevance of the offerors’ past performance. Although both offerors received “Substantial Confidence” ratings, GAO emphasized that agencies must qualitatively compare past performance and cannot just rely on equal labels. This was especially important here because ESI was higher rated under the technical factor, and the price difference between the two proposals was just 2.1%.
  5. Prejudice Was Clear: GAO rejected the agency’s argument that the outcome wouldn’t have changed even if it had evaluated BryMak differently. Because the record showed ESI was better rated under one factor, and the past performance differences were material, GAO found a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting a sustain.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Unbalanced Pricing Claims Must Be Precise: GAO requires a protester to show that specific line items are materially overstated or understated, not just that some prices are higher or lower than another offeror’s.
  2. Past Performance Credit Must Be Supported: Agencies cannot credit an offeror for experience performed by affiliates, teaming partners or joint ventures without clearly showing how that work is relevant and attributable.
  3. “It Was a Typo” Is Not a Defense: Post hoc explanations that contradict the record—like claiming “BryMak” was mistakenly listed instead of “CBFS”—will be afforded little weight if the contemporaneous documents tell a different story.
  4. Agency Must Look Beyond Adjectival Ratings: When both offerors receive the same confidence rating, agencies must still explain why one is preferred over the other, especially when the solicitation emphasizes specific experience or performance criteria.
  5. Evaluation Records Must Tell the Full Story: This case reinforces that contemporaneous documentation matters. Without it, agencies risk reversal.