GAO Denies Protest Over USDA's Strict Formatting Rejection in RiverNorth Case
In its April 18, 2025 decision in RiverNorth, Inc., B-423274.2; B-423274.3, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) rejection of RiverNorth’s quotation for failing to comply with explicit font size requirements in a Request for Quotations (RFQ) for program support services. RiverNorth, a small business based in Sterling, Virginia, protested its exclusion on several grounds, including unreasonable evaluation, latent ambiguity in the solicitation, unequal treatment of offerors, and the agency’s alleged failure to refer the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency determination. GAO denied each of these protest grounds.
At the core of the dispute was USDA’s decision to eliminate RiverNorth from a multiple-award BPA competition under FAR Subpart 8.4 procedures because a portion of RiverNorth’s quotation used a font smaller than 12-point Times New Roman in the footer, in violation of the RFQ’s formatting instructions. RiverNorth contended this was a minor deviation that could not have reasonably led to its disqualification, especially given the RFQ's lack of clarity on whether a single formatting error would be fatal. GAO found, however, that the RFQ explicitly warned vendors in multiple sections that non-compliance with formatting requirements—including font size—would render a quotation deficient and ineligible for award. The RFQ also used mandatory language such as “shall” and “must,” reinforcing the importance of strict compliance. GAO rejected RiverNorth’s argument that the RFQ required multiple formatting errors before a quotation would be disqualified, stating that even a single deviation was sufficient under the plain terms of the solicitation.
RiverNorth also alleged that the USDA engaged in unequal treatment by allowing another vendor to submit a rebuttal after being initially eliminated for using a graphic. That vendor demonstrated that its submission was in fact compliant, and the agency reversed its decision. RiverNorth argued this constituted discussions, which should have been extended to all vendors. GAO disagreed, distinguishing between clarifications initiated by an agency and a vendor’s unsolicited explanation challenging an evaluation error. Because the other vendor’s submission did not change its original quotation but merely pointed out an evaluation mistake, GAO held that the USDA did not engage in discussions nor treat offerors unequally.
Finally, GAO rejected RiverNorth’s claim that USDA’s decision not to refer its elimination to the SBA for a certificate of competency was improper. The ruling made clear that a rejection based on failure to follow formatting instructions is not a matter of contractor responsibility but a noncompliance with solicitation requirements, and thus does not require SBA involvement.
This decision underscores the critical importance of strictly adhering to all RFQ instructions, even seemingly minor formatting rules. For federal contractors, it serves as a reminder that failure to comply with clearly stated solicitation terms—no matter how minor the deviation may seem—can lead to disqualification without recourse. It also illustrates GAO’s consistent application of fairness standards under FAR Subpart 8.4, drawing a clear line between material clarifications and permissible vendor-initiated rebuttals.
Disclaimer: This summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a guarantee of accuracy. Readers should consult the original GAO decision and appropriate legal counsel for guidance.
