GAO Rejects Valiant’s EUCOM Linguist Protest: What It Teaches About Strengths, Pipelines, and Fluctuating Requirements

In Valiant Government Services, LLC, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest challenging the Army’s award of a major linguist-support task order (EUCOM III) to The Mission Essential Group, LLC. The task order combined requirements previously performed by Valiant (EUCOM II in Europe) and Mission Essential (Kosovo), with award made on a best-value basis under FAR subpart 16.5.

Valiant argued that the Army (1) failed to assign deserved strengths under the continuity plan subfactor, (2) unequally evaluated the offerors’ linguist pipelines, (3) improperly failed to amend the solicitation when the number of linguist full-time equivalents (FTEs) fluctuated during the procurement, and (4) conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. GAO rejected each theory.

A core theme of the decision is GAO’s deference to evaluative judgment. Valiant pointed to features such as a historically low attrition rate, a rapid mobilization team, and signed letters of commitment from most incumbent personnel. It asserted these should have been recognized as strengths.

The evaluators disagreed, characterizing Valiant’s retention and pipeline strategies as “typical industry practices” that were adequate but not advantage-creating. GAO reiterated that an agency is not required to assign strengths simply because an approach is good or even quantitatively successful; the question is whether it meaningfully exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the government. GAO also underscored that evaluation records are not required to “prove a negative” by documenting why every possible strength was not assigned.

For contractors, the lesson is clear: if you want a feature to be treated as a discriminating strength, you must do more than label it as such. You must explain, with specificity, how and why it provides concrete value beyond meeting the baseline requirement.

Valiant also alleged unequal treatment, claiming the Army effectively credited Mission Essential’s larger pipeline while dismissing Valiant’s. GAO carefully parsed the record and found that both proposals’ pipeline data (numbers of vetted, deployable linguists, etc.) were considered in the same way: as part of an overall judgment that each approach adequately met the requirement to maintain a sufficient pipeline.

The unequal-treatment argument collapsed once the evaluation narratives were read in context. GAO again emphasized that a single, somewhat imprecise phrase in an evaluation (e.g., that “pipeline size was not considered” for a claimed strength) cannot be isolated from the rest of the record, especially when other passages clearly show that similar information was considered for both offerors.

The most broadly significant aspect of the decision concerns Valiant’s allegation that the Army was required to amend the solicitation when the EUCOM II incumbent task order’s FTE levels decreased after proposals were submitted.

GAO rejected this claim because the solicitation explicitly contemplated ongoing fluctuations in staffing needs and established a mechanism—through modifications to the technical exhibit—for changing FTE levels during performance. Where a solicitation clearly signals dynamic requirements and a fluctuating headcount, post-issuance adjustments in FTEs do not automatically constitute a “material change” requiring amendment.

For IDIQ task-order competitions in operational environments (like overseas linguist support) where mission needs routinely shift, this holding reinforces an important boundary: not every change in incumbent staffing or workload after proposal submission triggers a duty to re-open competition.

Finally, GAO upheld the Army’s best-value tradeoff. Both offerors received the same overall technical rating under the continuity and transition plan factor, but Mission Essential received a higher past performance confidence rating and offered a significantly lower cost. The source selection authority qualitatively considered the underlying narratives—rather than relying solely on adjectival labels—and reasonably concluded that Mission Essential’s proposal represented the better value.

Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult qualified counsel regarding their specific circumstances.