Federal contractors devote substantial effort to understanding solicitation evaluation criteria. Those criteria determine which capabilities to emphasize, what evidence to provide, and how proposal preparation resources should be allocated.
But what happens when an agency evaluates an offeror against a requirement that was never clearly identified in the solicitation?
A recent Government Accountability Office decision provides an important reminder that agencies must evaluate proposals and qualifications consistently with the criteria they disclose to competitors.
In Michael Baker–International Stantec JV, B-424641 and B-424641.2, decided October 16, 2026 and publicly released November 3, GAO sustained part of a protest challenging the Army Corps of Engineers' evaluation of architect-engineer qualifications.
The procurement contemplated approximately five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts supporting engineering and design projects within the Corps' Northwestern Division, with a combined capacity of approximately $200 million.
Because the procurement involved architect-engineer services, the agency used qualifications-based selection procedures under the Brooks Act and FAR Subpart 36.6.
Offerors were required to submit qualifications statements using Standard Form 330, including examples of relevant completed projects.
The joint venture submitted ten example projects demonstrating experience across military construction, vertical and horizontal design, and related engineering work.
The Corps nevertheless assessed a weakness because the submission did not identify a particular example involving traditional design-bid-build delivery of a newly constructed vertical facility.
The problem was that the solicitation did not require that specific combination of experience.
Indeed, during the question-and-answer process, the agency had indicated that it did not prefer one project delivery method over another.
GAO found that the evaluation improperly elevated a particular type of project experience into an unstated requirement.
The distinction is important.
Agencies may consider matters reasonably and logically encompassed within disclosed evaluation factors. They are not required to identify every possible aspect of their technical judgment.
However, evaluators cannot impose a materially different requirement that offerors could not reasonably anticipate from the solicitation.
GAO concluded that the particular weakness was inconsistent with the announced evaluation criteria and recommended reevaluation.
The decision also demonstrates the limits of that principle.
GAO rejected the joint venture's separate challenge involving historic-preservation experience because the solicitation expressly identified that experience as relevant, and the contractor's submitted example did not adequately demonstrate it.
GAO also rejected challenges concerning professional qualifications, teamwork, and past performance.
The decision therefore protects both sides of the evaluation bargain: agencies must follow disclosed criteria, and contractors must adequately address those criteria in the required proposal sections.
For federal contractors, the practical implications begin during proposal development.
A disciplined compliance crosswalk should connect each solicitation requirement and evaluation factor to specific proposal evidence.
Offerors should identify whether the agency requires experience in a particular technology, project type, delivery method, geographic environment, or operational setting.
Questions and answers should also be preserved because they can clarify the evaluation standards against which proposals will later be judged.
If a post-award evaluation appears to penalize the contractor for an undisclosed requirement, the company should compare the evaluator's criticism against the solicitation and documented agency clarifications.
At the same time, contractors should not assume that vaguely mentioning relevant experience is sufficient when the solicitation requires meaningful examples.
The broader lesson is straightforward.
Federal competition depends on offerors knowing the standards against which their submissions will be evaluated.
An agency cannot quietly change those standards during evaluation, and contractors cannot expect evaluators to infer qualifications they have failed to demonstrate.
Recommended FedContractPros Product: Section L/M Compliance Crosswalk
The Section L/M Compliance Crosswalk helps contractors map solicitation instructions, evaluation factors, experience requirements, supporting evidence, and proposal sections to reduce compliance gaps and identify potential inconsistencies in evaluation.
Disclaimer:
This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, procurement, evaluation, or bid-protest advice. Agencies may evaluate considerations reasonably encompassed within stated criteria even if every consideration is not expressly identified. The outcome of an evaluation challenge depends on the solicitation, evaluation record, competitive prejudice, applicable procedures, and strict protest deadlines.