The protester alleged that GSA failed to conduct meaningful discussions by not raising, in pre-corrective action discussions, significant weaknesses that resulted in the proposal being rated unacceptable in a post-corrective action evaluation.

GAO has held that, when an agency seeks revised proposals and performs a new evaluation, that reevaluation may identify flaws in a materially unchanged proposal that the agency would have been required to discuss with the offeror, had the flaws been identified when the proposal was initially evaluated.

In that situation, the agency must reopen discussions in order to disclose its concerns.

GSA argued Life Science’s pre- and post-corrective action proposals were materially different, but GAO found that the content that gave rise to the significant weaknesses was present in both proposals but had been overlooked in the initial evaluation.

Since the Agency did not advise Life Science of the significant weaknesses in its initial proposal when conducting discussions, GAO sustained the protest and recommended GSA reopen the procurement, conduct meaningful discussions, and evaluate revised proposals.