On March 6, 2026, the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) issued its decision in AAA General Contractors, LLC—Reconsideration, B423842.7, dismissing a request to revisit an earlier protest denial involving the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) rejection of a proposal for failure to include a mandatory VAAR certification on subcontracting limitations. The case reinforces a familiar but critical principle in federal procurement: when a solicitation includes a material requirement (whether in the preparation instructions, evaluation criteria, standard clauses, or virtually anywhere else) offerors must comply. GAO will not rescue an offeror from the consequences of overlooking material solicitation requirements.
This decision also highlights the extremely narrow scope of GAO’s reconsideration review. A disappointed protester cannot simply repackage prior arguments or express dissatisfaction with the depth of analysis. To prevail, the requester must show a clear error of fact or law, or present new information that would change the outcome. In this case, unfortunately, AAA did neither.
The Underlying Protest: Missing VAAR 852.21975 Certification
The VA’s solicitation sought to award multiple award IDIQ contracts for construction, repair, and maintenance services at various VA medical facilities. The RFP incorporated VAAR 852.21975, a standard clause that implements the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 8127(f)(2) and calls for offerors to submit a signed certification affirming compliance with the applicable limitation on subcontracting. See, generally, 13 C.F.R. 125.6.
AAA submitted a proposal but omitted this certification. Accordingly, the VA rejected the proposal as ineligible for award. AAA protested, arguing that the solicitation’s instructions did not explicitly direct offerors to submit the certification and that the omission was only a minor informality that should have been resolved through clarifications.
GAO denied the protest in November 2025, holding that the certification was a material requirement and that the agency reasonably rejected AAA’s proposal. GAO also concluded that the omission could not be cured through clarifications because doing so would allow the offeror to remedy a material deficiency after the deadline.
The Reconsideration Request: Repeating Old Arguments Is Not Enough
AAA sought reconsideration, asserting that GAO “overlooked or declined to address multiple critical issues of fact and law.” But GAO found that AAA merely repeated arguments that were already raised and rejected. As GAO emphasized, a reconsideration request must identify a factual or legal error in the prior decision or present new information that would warrant a different outcome. Repetition and disagreement do not meet that standard.
AAA’s reconsideration arguments fell into three categories:
Argument 1: The certification requirement was not included in the proposal preparation instructions section.
AAA argued that the solicitation was latently ambiguous because the certification requirement appeared in a clause rather than in the instructions. GAO rejected this argument, noting that solicitations must be read as a whole and that material requirements can appear anywhere in a solicitation.
Argument 2: The VA failed to notify AAA of a Solicitation Amendment
AAA argued that it never received notice of an amendment (Amendment 0010) that the VA issued after AAA’s initial proposal submission. GAO declined to revisit the issue because the amendment had no bearing on the dispositive reason for rejection. However, GAO noted that the amendment was posted on SAM.gov, which constitutes constructive notice.
Argument 3: The solicitation was ambiguous about when the certification was required.
AAA suggested that the certification might have been intended only for future task order proposals (the Solicitation contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts). GAO dismissed this as a new argument that could have been raised earlier and, in any event, contradicted the plain language of VAAR 852.21975.
Takeaways for Contractors
1. Material requirements apply, regardless of where they appear in the Solicitation.
Contractors cannot assume that only the volume preparation instructions (often labelled, “Instructions to Offerors”) contains mandatory submission requirements. Clauses, provisions, and attachments may impose material obligations. GAO routinely upholds agency rejections where offerors fail to comply with such requirements.
2. Missing a required certification is almost always fatal.
GAO continues to treat certifications, such as VAAR 852.21975, Buy American, Trade Agreement Act, or those derived from other statutes and authorities, as material. Agencies cannot waive them as minor informalities, and offerors cannot cure the omission through post-submission clarifications.
3. Reconsideration review is limited and rarely results in success.
GAO will dismiss reconsideration requests that simply relitigate prior points. To succeed, a requester must show a clear factual or legal error or present new, outcomechanging information.
4. Publication via SAM.gov is effective notice.
Even if an offeror claims it did not receive actual direct notice of an amendment, publication on SAM.gov is legally sufficient. Contractors should monitor the website throughout the procurement (and contracting officers should, in my opinion, email a friendly reminder once in a while).
Conclusion
The recent AAA General Contractors reconsideration decision is a straightforward but important reminder: offerors must read solicitations holistically and comply with all material requirements, wherever they appear. GAO will not rewrite solicitations, excuse omissions, or bail out proposal-preparation mistakes. For contractors, especially small businesses pursuing VA setaside opportunities, this case underscores the importance of disciplined proposal compliance reviews and rigorous solicitation monitoring.
