Small Business Teams Get Their Day: GAO Says Agency Can’t Force Solo Acts

The protester challenged multiple terms of a solicitation for a massive multiple-award IDIQ vehicle consolidating professional services requirements. Among other arguments, the protester contended that the solicitation’s prohibition on small business teaming arrangements violated the Small Business Act. GAO agreed, finding that the Act affords small businesses—not agencies—the discretion to choose between competing as a team of subcontractors or as a joint venture, and sustained the protest on that basis while denying the remaining grounds.

Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions, Inc., GAO, B-424433.3; B-424433.7

• Background – The agency issued a solicitation for the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS), a consolidated IDIQ vehicle with a $50 billion ceiling combining two existing multiple-award contracts. The solicitation contemplated up to 350 awards across five technical domains using a phased, self-scored evaluation approach. The protester, a small business, challenged several aspects of the solicitation, including the agency’s numbering conventions, its prohibition on classified past performance references, alleged ambiguities and unanswered pre-proposal questions, and—most significantly—the solicitation’s bar on small business prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements.
• Solicitation Numbering and Posting – The protester complained that the agency kept changing the solicitation number and reposted amendments as new listings on SAM.gov, disrupting automated tracking alerts. GAO denied this ground. The agency’s new contract writing system appended amendment numbers to the base solicitation number in a manner consistent with the applicable regulations, and the agency posted clarifying notices explaining the numbering. More importantly, the protester had actual knowledge of all amendments—it cited them throughout its protest filings. Where a protester actually receives and uses the amendments, complaints about posting mechanics provide no basis to sustain the protest.
• Classified Past Performance Prohibition – The protester argued that barring classified contracts as past performance references was unduly restrictive. GAO denied this argument. Agencies have broad discretion to define their needs, and the agency provided a rational explanation: accepting classified submissions would create serious security risks, require facility accreditation modifications, and impose administrative burdens far out of proportion to the benefits. Data showed that of 338 awards under one predecessor vehicle, only three required classified performance. The protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment did not render the restriction unreasonable.
• Ambiguities and Unanswered Questions – The protester claimed the agency’s failure to substantively answer thousands of pre-proposal questions left offerors unable to compete intelligently. GAO denied these arguments. A protester challenging unanswered questions must show the solicitation itself is inadequate, unclear, or ambiguous. Here, the solicitation clearly explained NAICS code alignment (treating “overarching” and “domain-specific” NAICS codes interchangeably), clearly described how past performance quality would be evaluated using CPARS or PPQs, and the “emerging large business” category was removed by amendment—rendering related complaints academic.
• Small Business Teaming Prohibition – This is where the protester prevailed. The solicitation flatly prohibited small business teaming arrangements, though it permitted joint ventures. The agency argued that the Small Business Act’s use of “or” in 15 U.S.C. § 644(e)(4)(A) and § 644(q)(1)(A)—referring to “teams or joint ventures”—gave agencies discretion to permit one or the other. GAO rejected this reading. The plain language of the statute grants a small business concern a positive right to submit an offer using either a team of subcontractors or a joint venture. The discretion belongs to the small business, not the agency. Reading the statute otherwise would frustrate the underlying policy of maximizing small business participation in consolidated procurements. GAO recommended the agency amend the solicitation to permit small business teaming arrangements.

The protester is represented by Jeff Swartz. The government is represented by Wade L. Brown, Esq., Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Andrew S. Waggoner, Esq., Brittany N. York, Esq., and Adam R. Bosse, Esq., of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., participated in the decision.