Posted

No Unstated Criteria, No Double Counting and No OCI: GAO Rejects Peraton’s Claims in $1 Billion Procurement

by

In Peraton Inc., B-423639 (September 17, 2025), Peraton Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s award of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) for IT lifecycle support services at U.S. Strategic Command. Peraton challenged several aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. It argued that the agency had applied unstated evaluation criteria by placing excessive emphasis on audiovisual (A/V) engineering support requirements that were not clearly highlighted as evaluation factors. Peraton also claimed that the agency improperly double-counted weaknesses, penalizing the same alleged deficiency in both the technical and staffing evaluation areas.

Additionally, Peraton asserted that the agency underrated its management approach, failed to investigate an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) stemming from GDIT’s employment of two former government officials and improperly declined to seek clarifications during oral presentations. Peraton maintained that each of these missteps undermined the integrity of the procurement. GAO disagreed, ultimately denying the protest in full.

The Decision
GAO denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. No Unstated Evaluation Criteria: GAO rejected Peraton’s claim that the agency unfairly emphasized the requirement for A/V engineering support in the Global Operations Center (GOC). The solicitation clearly stated that the contractor would be responsible for A/V engineering in the GOC, and the agency’s evaluation focused on whether offerors addressed that need. GAO concluded that this focus was reasonably encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria, which required proposals to show understanding of the technical environment and to address the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.
  2. No Improper “Double Counting” of Weaknesses: Peraton received two significant weaknesses: one under technical approach for lacking a comprehensive plan to address GOC A/V engineering, and one under staffing for failing to propose personnel with A/V engineering credentials. GAO explained that the same shortcoming can properly impact multiple factors when relevant. In this case, the technical and staffing issues were distinct and independently evaluated, making both weaknesses valid.
  3. Adjectival Ratings Are Not Mechanical: GAO upheld the agency’s decision to assign Peraton a “Good” rating under the management approach factor, even though its proposal had two strengths and no weaknesses. The evaluation board determined that Peraton demonstrated a “sound” understanding, not the “thorough” understanding required for an “Excellent” rating. GAO reiterated that adjectival ratings are subjective guides, not rigid scoring formulas.
  4. OCI Allegations Were Investigated and Rejected: Peraton alleged that GDIT had an unfair advantage from hiring two former government officials who previously worked at the U.S. Strategic Command. GAO found that the agency conducted a thorough OCI investigation, including sworn declarations and analysis of changes to the procurement. The officials had left the agency more than four years before the issuance of the RFP, and the agency reasonably concluded any information they had was stale and not competitively useful. GAO gave substantial deference to the contracting officer’s findings and rejected the protester’s speculation.
  5. Clarifications Were Not Required: Although the solicitation allowed the agency to ask clarifying questions during oral presentations, it did not require it. GAO emphasized that under FAR 16.5, agencies have broad discretion to conduct (or not conduct) clarifications, and Peraton had no automatic right to revise its proposal based on questions not asked.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. If It’s in the PWS, It’s Fair Game for Evaluation: Don’t assume that a requirement not separately labeled as an evaluation factor can be ignored. If it’s in the PWS and tied to the performance objectives, the agency can (and likely will) evaluate your response to it.
  2. Weaknesses Can Be Cited More Than Once if Justified: When a shortcoming affects multiple areas (e.g., technical plan and management approach), evaluators may cite it under more than one factor. That’s not double-counting, it’s due diligence.
  3. Adjectival Ratings Are Flexible, Not Math Equations: Having multiple strengths and no weaknesses doesn’t guarantee a top rating. Ratings depend on how well your proposal aligns with evaluation definitions, not just quantity of strengths.
  4. OCI Challenges Must Be Based on Hard Facts, Not Hunches: GAO gives great deference to agency investigations into OCI issues and sworn statements from former officials about their involvement (or lack thereof) in a particular RFP, especially when the former officials all left long before the RFP was issued. Mere assumptions won’t sustain an OCI claim.
  5. Clarifications Are a Privilege, Not a Right: If your proposal misses key points, don’t count on being asked to explain. Agencies can choose not to ask, and you may not get a second chance.