The U.S. Government Accountability Office has declined to overturn its decision not to scrutinize whether the winning bid for a federal information technology services contract was priced too low, rejecting a protest brought by Salient CRGT Inc.
In a decision dated December 5 and made public this week, the GAO said it was not required to conduct a price realism analysis of the winning proposal submitted by Science Applications International Corp. Salient had argued that SAIC’s $95.36 million bid, roughly 51 percent of the government’s independent cost estimate, reflected inadequate staffing and insufficient labor hours to meet the contract’s requirements.
“Absent a solicitation provision providing for a price realism analysis, agencies are neither required nor permitted to conduct one in awarding a fixed price contract,” the GAO said. “The nature and extent of an agency’s cost or price analysis is largely a matter of agency discretion, dependent upon the facts of a particular procurement.”
Salient contended that its own $134.28 million proposal accounted for a significant expansion in the scope and complexity of the work compared with the prior task order. By contrast, Salient argued, SAIC’s proposal relied on staffing levels that would have been sufficient only under the earlier contract.
The GAO noted that while a price realism analysis can be used to assess whether a bid is so low that it creates a risk of poor performance, the solicitation did not include language authorizing the agency to reject proposals based on unrealistically low pricing. As a result, the agency was not permitted to apply that type of analysis.
“As discussed, the agency found that SAIC’s staffing plan and workforce plan would satisfy the requirements of the task order and did not find a basis to reject SAIC’s proposal,” the decision said.
The GAO issued the request for proposals in October 2024 for a task order covering information technology services. In evaluating bids, the agency considered price, technical approach, and past performance. It concluded that SAIC’s technical proposal was superior to Salient’s, including with respect to staffing levels and proposed labor hours.
Salient also challenged how the agency assessed past performance and whether bidders proposed qualified key personnel. The GAO found no unequal treatment, noting that the agency waived certain special qualifications and certifications for both SAIC and Salient.
A representative for Salient did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The decision was prepared by GAO attorneys Charmaine Stevenson and John Sorrenti.
Salient was represented by J. Andrew Jackson, Ryan McGovern, Robyn Celestino, and Jonathan DeWitt of Jones Day. SAIC was represented by Daniel Forman, William O’Reilly, and Jasmine Masri of Crowell and Moring LLP. The GAO was represented in house by Lauren Jenrich and Nuha Hamid.
The case is Matter of: Salient CRGT Inc., file number B-423283.3, before the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
