Raven Advisory, LLC

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This unredacted version has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: Raven Advisory, LLC

File: B-424405; B-424405.2

Date: July 14, 2026

Conan J. Higgins, Esq., TSI Legal Enterprises, PC, for the protester.
Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq., Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., and Jerome P. Duggan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging issuance of solicitation amendment is dismissed as untimely where the protest was not filed before the due date for revised quotations established by the amendment.

2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's price as unreasonable is dismissed for lack of prejudice. Even if the agency had found the protester's price to be reasonable, the protester would not have been in line for award because the solicitation provided for award to be made on a lowest‑priced, technically acceptable basis and the protester did not submit the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation.

DECISION

Raven Advisory, LLC, a small business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Ragged Edge Solutions, LLC, a small business of Greenville, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. H92421-26-Q-E021, issued by the Department of the Air Force, United States Special Operations Command, for austere medical technician training in support of special operations forces. The protester asserts that the agency improperly issued a solicitation amendment and unreasonably evaluated Raven's price.

We dismiss the protest.

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2026, the agency issued the RFQ as a small business set‑aside using the procedures of Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) part 12 for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 10; Agency Report (AR), Tab 40, Conformed RFQ at 1.[2] The solicitation sought a contractor to provide austere medical technician training to non-medical service members of the special operations forces conducting sensitive activities or low-visibility operations in remote locales without developed health service support platforms. AR, Tab 12, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contract under which fixed‑price orders would be issued during a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 10‑14.

The solicitation advised that award would be made using a “Best Value approach” to the quotation that “meet[s], or exceed[s], the acceptable standards of the non‑price factors identified in the solicitation.” Id. at 41. The RFQ identified the following three factors for evaluation: technical acceptability, price, and past performance. Id. For the non-price factors of technical acceptability and past performance, the agency would “evaluate the quote to determine if it is either Technically Acceptable or Technically Unacceptable” based on whether it “demonstrate[s] an understanding of the requirement that meets the needs of the solicitation and PWS.” Id. The solicitation provided that price would be evaluated for reasonableness and that “[u]nreasonably high, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.” Id. As relevant here, the solicitation also advised that “[t]rade-offs between price and non‑price factors are not permitted.” Id.

On March 12, the agency issued a solicitation amendment, responding to vendor questions and revising unclear language in the PWS. COS at 6‑7; see generally, AR, Tab 16, RFQ amend. 1; AR, Tab 14, Responses to Questions; AR, Tab 15, Amended PWS. By the initial quotation due date of March 16, the agency received timely submitted quotations from two offerors, Raven and Ragged Edge. COS at 6. On March 17, after the receipt of initial quotations, the agency issued a second solicitation amendment, which changed the pricing structure of the contract line item numbers (CLINs). Instead of basing pricing on the number of courses provided, it was changed so that pricing was based on the number of students the contractor taught. Id. at 6‑7; see generally, AR, Tab 20, RFQ amend. 2. The amendment did not provide further opportunities for vendor questions and set a due date of March 19 for the submission of conforming quotations. AR, Tab 20, RFQ amend. 2 at 2.

Both Raven and Ragged Edge timely submitted revised quotations, which were evaluated as follows:

COS at 7; AR, Tab 27, Ragged Edge Technical Evaluation at 1; AR, Tab 29, Raven Technical Evaluation at 1; AR, Tab 31, Price Analysis at 1.

Noting that both vendors were deemed technically acceptable, the contracting officer determined that Ragged Edge was the “Best value to the government.”[3] AR, Tab 32a, Contract Clearance Memorandum at 1‑2. On March 25, the agency notified Ragged Edge of the award decision. COS at 9; see AR, Tab 33, Notice of Award at 1.

On April 2, Raven requested an update on the procurement, and the contracting officer responded the next day by providing the name of the awardee, date of award, and the total awarded price. COS at 9‑10; AR, Tab 35, Raven Email, Apr. 2, 2026, at 1; AR, Tab 36, Contracting Officer Email, Apr. 3, 2026, at 1. On April 7, Raven sent another email to the contracting officer, “formally request[ing] a post‑award debriefing” under section 15.506(a)(1) of the FAR. AR, Tab 37, Email Chain, Apr. 7, 2026, at 2. The contracting officer responded by email that same day, informing Raven that the debriefing procedures under FAR part 15 did not apply to this procurement because it was conducted under RFO section 12.201‑1 (simplified procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and services), under which “Offerors are only entitled to a brief explanation of award, and only if requested.” Id. at 1. The contracting officer further explained as follows:

Ultimately, Evaluation Factor 2- Price, was determined NOT fair and reasonable pricing based on competition, Independent Government Cost Estimate, and historic/current data of the same or similar contract awards. The offerors total price evaluation was 59.92 [percent] higher than any price fair and reasonable evaluation method used. With a cost difference of this magnitude, it was determined that this offer was not Best Value to the government.

Id. On April 10, Raven filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

The protester raises a number of challenges to the agency's source selection decision. First, the protester contends that the agency engaged in a systematic pattern of bias and improper favoritism that included, among other things, failing to exercise option year contracts and failing to notify Raven of contract awards. Protest at 6‑9. The protester also challenges the agency's determination that Raven's price was unreasonable, arguing that the firm's higher-priced quotation was caused by the agency's unreasonable issuance of the second solicitation amendment. Id. at 7. The protester further argues that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by using an undisclosed independent government cost estimate (IGCE) and historical procurement data in its price evaluation. Id. at 8. Finally, the protester asserts that the agency failed to sufficiently document its evaluation and source selection decision. 2nd Supp. Protest at 2‑4. We dismiss the protest for the reasons discussed below. Although we do not specifically address every argument raised by the protester, we have considered all of them and find that they provide no basis on which to sustain the protest.[4]

Second Solicitation Amendment

Several of Raven's challenges pertain to alleged defects with the issuance of the second solicitation amendment. Specifically, the protester argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to “impose[] a fundamental pricing restructuring [and] reduce[] course quantity guarantees,” without an opportunity for vendor questions, and then require quotation revisions “with a 48‑hour turnaround window.” Protest at 8. The protester also argues that these defects “artificially advantaged any offeror”--such as the incumbent contractor--that had “pre-existing knowledge of the government's student‑load expectations, IGCE benchmarks, or pricing assumptions.” Id. The protester asserts that these improprieties in the solicitation amendment process “directly caused” Raven's price to be found unreasonable. Id. at 7.

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. These timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc., B‑422536 et al., July 24, 2024, at 6. Relevant here, our regulations require that “alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing time” for receipt of quotations following the incorporation. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); Vigor Marine LLC, B‑420955.2, Oct. 31, 2022, at 4. Underlying our regulations in this regard is the principle that challenges which go to the heart of the ground rules by which a competition is conducted should be resolved as early as practicable during the solicitation process, and certainly in advance of an award decision, not afterwards. Alamo City Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-422901.2, Jan. 31, 2025, at 6.

In response to the agency's request for dismissal of these allegations, the protester argues that the improprieties in the amendment process only became apparent when combined with the agency's unreasonable decision to “treat the resulting price increase as evidence of price unreasonableness,” which then was used as “an elimination criterion rather than as a tradeoff factor.” Comments at 4. According to the protester, the issuance of the second amendment by itself, is not the basis for its protest; rather, the amendment procedure was problematic only because the agency then chose to use undisclosed IGCE and historical data as benchmarks in the price evaluation to remove Raven's revised quotation from competition. Id.

Notwithstanding the protester's assertion that it is not challenging the issuance of the second amendment, by itself, all of the aspects of the amendment challenged by the protester--the change of the pricing structure, the 48-hour response period, and the lack of opportunities for vendor questions--were apparent at the time of the amendment issuance.[5] Therefore, the time to challenge these terms of the amendment on the basis that they were unduly restrictive or otherwise unfair was prior to the due date for revised quotations on March 19. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); see also Worrell Contracting Co., Inc., B‑423208, Jan. 22, 2025, at 5‑6 (dismissing as untimely a protest challenging the adequacy of a notice provided for solicitation amendment where the protest was not filed before the new due date for quotations established by the amendment). Accordingly, Raven's challenge to the terms of the second solicitation amendment is untimely because it was not filed until April 10.

Price Evaluation and Documentation

The protester next challenges the agency's evaluation of Raven's price quotation, arguing that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its price reasonableness determination. Protest at 7‑8. Specifically, the protester contends that the agency improperly used an undisclosed IGCE and historical pricing to conclude that Raven's price was not reasonable. Id.; Comments at 7‑9. According to the protester, Raven would have had a substantial chance of award had the agency not used this undisclosed price reasonableness methodology as “an elimination criterion rather than as a tradeoff factor.” Protest at 8; Comments at 4. The protester also asserts that the agency failed to sufficiently document its price evaluation and award decision. Comments at 7; 2nd Supp. Protest at 2‑4. We need not address these allegations, however, because, as discussed below, the protester has not demonstrated that it was competitively prejudiced by the agency's action.[6]

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest. Citizant, Inc.; Steampunk, Inc., B‑420660 et al., July 13, 2022, at 18. Where the protester fails to demonstrate that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award, there is no basis for finding prejudice, and our Office will not sustain the protest, even if deficiencies in the procurement are found. IR Techs., B‑414430 et al., June 6, 2017, at 12. Here, even if the agency had found Raven's price to be fair and reasonable, its higher priced quotation would not have had a substantial chance of receiving the award ahead of Ragged Edge's lower‑priced, technically acceptable quotation.

As noted above, the solicitation's evaluation scheme provided for the evaluation of two non‑price factors (technical capability and past performance) as acceptable or unacceptable, based on whether the relevant quotation “clearly meets the minimum requirements.” RFQ at 41. Because the solicitation also expressly advised that “[t]rade-offs between price and non‑price factors are not permitted,” id., these solicitation provisions, taken together, required that the agency make award to the vendor submitting the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable quotation.

As relevant here, the agency evaluated both vendors' quotations as acceptable under the technical capability and past performance factors, and the protester has not challenged the agency's evaluation under these non-price factors. Thus, even if we were to find that the agency erred in finding the protester's price to be unreasonably high, Ragged Edge's quotation would remain in line for award as the lowest‑priced technically acceptable quotation.[7]

Similarly, the protester cannot show that it was competitively prejudiced by any failure of the agency to sufficiently document its evaluation and award decision. First, while the protester asserts that the agency failed to adequately document its price reasonableness analysis, see 2nd Supp. Protest at 2‑4, as discussed above, the protester has failed to demonstrate that correcting any error in the agency's price reasonableness evaluation would have led to Raven being in line for award. In this regard, the agency documented its technical evaluation of the vendors' quotations showing that both vendors were found technically acceptable, as well as its price analysis showing Ragged Edge's price to be lower than Raven's. See AR, Tab 28, Ragged Edge Technical Evaluation at 1; AR, Tab 30, Raven Technical Evaluation at 1; AR, Tab 31, Price Analysis at 1. Similarly, in light of the solicitation provision prohibiting a tradeoff between the price and non‑price factors, the protester has not shown that it was prejudiced by the agency's failure to provide more fulsome documentation of its source selection decision.[8] In sum, we find no basis to conclude that the protester was prejudiced by any lack of award or price reasonableness documentation in the record.

The protest is dismissed.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel