“When ‘TBD’ Means TBD”: Solvere Technical Group and the Limits of Unstated Evaluation Criteria
The GAO’s decision in Solvere Technical Group, LLC, B-423785 (dated December 18, 2025, and released publicly in redacted form), is worth a standalone blog post because it squarely addresses a recurring source of protest risk in service procurements: agencies attempting to downgrade an offeror for doing exactly what the solicitation told it to do, particularly in staffing plans that permit “TBD” (to be determined) entries for non-key personnel.
The Navy competed a SeaPort NxG task order as a 100 percent woman-owned small business set-aside for information technology and information assurance services at NSWC Indian Head, using FAR 16.5 procedures and a best-value tradeoff in which non-cost factors were significantly more important than cost. The solicitation required a staffing plan and expressly instructed offerors to use “TBD” for non-key positions without identified personnel. Yet the evaluation assessed Solvere a significant weakness on the theory that it proposed too many TBD positions and too many staff “with no CWF certificates,” relying in part on an asserted solicitation “emphasis” that offerors should minimize unidentified personnel—language GAO found does not actually appear in the RFP.
GAO’s core holding is conceptually straightforward but practically important: an agency may not interpret evaluation criteria in a way that nullifies an express proposal instruction. GAO reasoned that reading the personnel-approach criterion to require (or penalize the absence of) individualized qualifications for non-key TBD personnel “fails to give meaning” to the solicitation’s explicit permission to propose TBD staff, and creates an irrational result where an offeror is punished for following the solicitation’s template and instructions. The decision is especially notable because GAO frames the analysis against a recent, “nearly identical” SeaPort NxG staffing-plan case (CACI, Inc.--Fed.), emphasizing consistency in how ambiguous Seaport staffing provisions must be read as a whole to avoid absurdity.
The case also matters because it rejects an agency attempt to convert understandable operational anxieties into de facto solicitation requirements. The RFP’s security language stated that DoD 8570.01-M certification specifications were required to be met within six months for newly reporting personnel, yet evaluators effectively treated certification “prior to onboarding” as mandatory and downgraded Solvere for not staffing as if that higher bar applied. GAO’s point is not that agencies cannot care about pre-onboard certifications; it is that they must write that requirement into the solicitation (and evaluation criteria) if they intend to enforce it through scoring.
Finally, Solvere extends the same logic to cost evaluation in cost-reimbursement, labor-heavy work: GAO found the agency’s assessed “cost risk” for a high TBD percentage was inconsistent with the RFP’s cost-risk predicates (unrealistically low/unsupported/inconsistent-with-technical costs) and was defended largely through post-hoc rationalization, even though contemporaneous records said the TBD labor rates were realistic. In practical terms, the decision gives contractors a clean protest theory when an agency “double counts” staffing discomfort under both technical and cost without having signaled that TBD usage is a risk discriminator.
GAO sustained the protest and recommended reevaluation consistent with the solicitation, or alternatively amending the solicitation to reflect the Navy’s preferences and allowing revised proposals; GAO also recommended reimbursement of protest costs.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the underlying GAO decision and seek counsel for advice about any specific procurement, protest strategy, or proposal-compliance question.
Credit: Decision prepared by GAO counsel Heather Self and Peter H. Tran, Office of the General Counsel.