The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”)’s November 13, 2025 decision in Castro & Company, LLC (B-423689) is the kind all federal contractors should have on their radar. The protest challenged a Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) blanket-purchase agreement award for audit and financial support services. GAO sustained the protest on three grounds: organizational conflicts of interest (“OCI”), unstated evaluation criteria, and a fatally flawed best-value tradeoff. GAO’s decision paints a clear picture of what agencies cannot do during source selections. And for small and mid-sized firms—especially those without large proposal teams—this case reinforces that you have real leverage when the government strays from the solicitation or makes an undocumented tradeoff.
FEC failed to meaningfully investigate or document the alleged OCI.
The awardee, Contracts Management Enterprises, LLC (“CME”), had an employee who had served as a contract specialist on another FEC procurement while working in close proximity to the source selection authority for the protested contract. Such circumstances do not automatically bar a contractor, but they absolutely trigger an OCI review. The contracting officer asserted that the employee took precautions like setting up firewalls, routing communications through her email, and limiting access to proposals. Still, GAO found the FEC contracting officer’s OCI analysis was lacking as there was no substantive fact-finding or concurrent documentation, no notable comparison of duties, and no tailored mitigation. GAO stressed that without written evidence, there was no basis to conclude that a meaningful investigation had occurred.
Takeaways: GAO’s decision makes clear that agencies can’t bank on belated rationalizations or general assertions of compliance when it comes to OCI analysis. If the record lacks documented support for such assertions, GAO will sustain the challenger’s protest.
FEC’s evaluation relied on unstated criteria.
GAO found that the agency wrongly evaluated Castro & Company, LLC (“Castro”)’s proposal using factors and expectations that did not appear in the Request for Quotations (“RFQ”). Namely, these factors were “timeline specifics” and “structured response.”
The agency’s technical evaluation team cited Section 3 of the RFQ’s Statement of Work as the source of the “timeline specifics” requirement, but GAO reviewed that section and found that it didn’t require timeline details at all. FEC then asserted Castro had “cherry-picked” the phrase. That defense was rejected, as the agency itself used the phrase in its justification of the marginal rating for Castro’s technical approach but failed to explain how it related to any actual requirement in the solicitation.
GAO also found that the evaluation team failed to explain what it meant by a “structured response” or how Castro’s proposal failed to meet the undefined standard. FEC claimed that the wording was irrelevant, but GAO noted that the exact phrase appeared in the evaluation record, including in the explanation for Castro’s marginal rating. The agency’s failure to explain the term “structured response” made the assessed deficiency unreasonable.
Takeaways: This is a classic bid protest issue. When an agency uses specific language in an evaluation, it must explain how that language relates back to the solicitation. When protesting evaluation findings, focus on what is missing from the documentation, flagging unsupported or conclusory statements. If your debriefing includes feedback or mentions criteria that isn’t tied to the solicitation, you may have a viable ground for protest.
FEC ignored Castro’s lower price in the best-value tradeoff.
Castro’s proposal was technically acceptable and cheaper than CME’s offer. However, the record showed that the FEC excluded its lower-priced quote when comparing CME’s higher-priced offer to other vendors. GAO also found that the best-value tradeoff failed to document any consideration of Castro’s technical merits or price, which was the lowest among all offerors. Because Castro remained eligible for award, the failure to evaluate it in the tradeoff rendered the decision unreasonable. GAO therefore sustained Castro’s challenge to the best-value tradeoff analysis.
Takeaways: If a bidder is still in the competitive range or otherwise eligible for award, their price and technical approach must be considered in the tradeoff analysis. Ignoring a lower-priced offeror without explanation is definite grounds for a protest.
