Posted

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

by

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.

The Decision
GAO denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. GAO Found the Price Exclusion Unreasonable: The FBI rejected IMTAS’s proposal as “incomplete” due to a one-cent discrepancy in a fully burdened labor rates entry—even though the quoted price used for evaluation was correct, and other identical labor categories were properly priced. GAO concluded that the FBI acted unreasonably by excluding IMTAS for an error that was obviously harmless.
  2. But GAO Still Denied the Protest Because No Prejudice: Despite the error, GAO held that IMTAS could not show a substantial chance of award, given that it received low confidence ratings on both technical and past performance factors—while the awardee received high confidence ratings across the board.
  3. “Too Close at Hand” Doctrine Didn’t Apply: IMTAS also argued the agency should have considered its corporate experience with Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) methodologies—work allegedly performed under a prior FBI order—because it was “too close at hand” to ignore. GAO rejected this argument, noting that offerors are responsible for submitting well-written proposals, and that the doctrine does not require agencies to dig for unstated experience when evaluating technical experience.
  4. Proposal Writing Still Matters: GAO found that IMTAS failed to clearly demonstrate required SAFe experience in its past performance volume—even when it submitted an example from the exact BPA under which the order was issued. The protester’s vague references to “work consistent with SAFe methodologies” were not enough.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Even Obvious Evaluation Errors May Not Be Enough—You Still Need to Show Prejudice to Win: GAO may agree that an agency acted unreasonably, but your protest will still fail if you can’t show the mistake changed the outcome.
  2. Scrivener’s Errors Are Not Always Disqualifying—But Don’t Rely on Leniency: This case reinforces that agencies should use common sense, but the burden is still on the protester to avoid mistakes.
  3. The “Too Close at Hand” Doctrine Has Limits: Agencies may consider readily available past performance information, but they’re not required to—and they won’t use it to rescue vague or incomplete submissions.
  4. Don’t Just Be Accurate—Be Explicit: When an RFP requires experience with a specific methodology or capability (like SAFe), clearly tie your project descriptions to those requirements. Don’t assume the evaluators will connect the dots.
  5. Low Ratings Are Hard to Overcome: Even with a lower price, if your technical and past performance ratings are poor, it’s difficult to show prejudice—a consistent theme in GAO decisions.