Posted

A Figment of the Protester’s Imagination: GAO Rejects EY’s Discussions Argument

by

In Ernst & Young, LLP, B-423491.2 (Sept. 26, 2025), Ernst & Young (EY) protested the scope of corrective action taken by the Department of the Army following EY’s earlier protest of the Army’s award to Guidehouse for support of the Army Financial Improvement program. EY’s initial protest resulted in a voluntary corrective action, during which the agency announced it would reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision. However, during implementation of that corrective action, Guidehouse informed the Army that one of its proposed key personnel was no longer available. That development led the Army to open limited discussions focused on key personnel substitution, which in turn became the focus of EY’s follow-on protest.

EY challenged the agency’s decision to conduct limited discussions and restrict proposal revisions, and also alleged that the Army’s needs had materially changed since the solicitation was issued, requiring an amendment. GAO denied EY’s challenges to the scope of corrective action and dismissed the remainder of the protest as untimely. In doing so, the decision provides a valuable reminder that agencies have broad discretion to tailor proposal revisions during corrective action and that timeliness rules will be strictly enforced, even when protest grounds are tied to evolving contract performance realities.​

The Decision
GAO denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. Limited Proposal Revisions During Corrective Action Were Reasonable: EY argued that the Army’s corrective action, which permitted offerors to revise only those proposal sections related to unavailable key personnel, was overly narrow and not tied to the original protest grounds. GAO disagreed, finding that the Army reasonably allowed for limited revisions once Guidehouse notified the agency that a proposed key person had become unavailable. Even though the key personnel issue arose after the original protest was filed, GAO held that an agency’s corrective action can address new issues that emerge during the corrective action period. GAO reaffirmed that, where an agency’s proposed corrective action does not include amending the solicitation, an agency may impose reasonable limits on proposal revisions so long as the action addresses an established or suspected procurement impropriety.
  2. ​EY Misread the Scope of Permitted Revisions in the Discussions Letter: EY also claimed that the Army’s discussions letter improperly limited proposal revisions to only those sections that explicitly mentioned the substituted key personnel. The Army argued that this protest was based upon “a figment of the Protester’s imagination.” GAO agreed and rejected EY’s interpretation. Reading the letter as a whole, GAO found that it allowed offerors to revise any technical and cost areas materially impacted by the substitution, not just sections that used the substituted person’s name. GAO explained that EY’s reading was unreasonable because it isolated specific phrases rather than interpreting the full context of the discussions letter.
  3. Timeliness Rules Barred Challenges to Alleged Changes in Requirements: EY separately argued that the Army’s needs had materially changed either due to accelerated deadlines under the new Trump administration or because certain tasks had already been completed under the incumbent contract (which EY was performing). GAO found both arguments untimely. GAO held that challenges to changed requirements are analogous to solicitation challenges and must be raised within 10 days of when the protester knew or should have known of the alleged change. EY failed to identify when it learned the facts underpinning its protest grounds and, according to the record, had knowledge as early as January 2025. Thus, since EY filed its protest in June 2025, GAO held it was too late and dismissed the challenges.
  4. GAO Rejected EY’s Attempt to Hold a Protest Ground in Reserve: EY argued that it could not challenge the alleged acceleration of performance requirements earlier because, at the time, there was no open solicitation, only a contract to be modified. GAO rejected this explanation and found the argument “antithetical to the principle that allegations of solicitation improprieties be resolved as early as possible.” GAO emphasized that it does not condone holding back a protest ground until corrective action takes an unfavorable shape, and made clear that if EY believed the solicitation no longer reflected the agency’s true needs, it was required to raise that concern during its initial protest.

Key Takeaways for Contactors

  1. Agencies May Reasonably Limit Proposal Revisions During Corrective Action: Corrective action can address not only the issues that prompted it but also new issues that arise during the corrective action period. GAO will uphold restrictions on revisions if they are reasonable and connected to established (or even suspected) procurement improprieties.
  2. Context Matters; Don’t Read in a Vacuum: GAO expects offerors to interpret solicitation and discussions language as a whole. Arguments built on isolated phrases or cherry-picked wording will fall flat when the broader context tells a different story.
  3. You Can’t Hold Protest Grounds in Reserve: If a protester believes the solicitation no longer reflects the agency’s actual needs, that challenge must be raised promptly. GAO will not permit contractors to wait and see how corrective action unfolds before raising objections tied to known issues. Protesters must bring solicitation challenges as soon as they are aware of the basis, not when it’s strategically convenient.
  4. Being the Incumbent Can Complicate Timing: Protesters performing the incumbent contract are presumed to know when tasks are complete or requirements evolve. GAO may use this knowledge to calculate when the protest window opens.