Ernst & Young, LLP (W91CRB-21-R-0049)

B-423491.2 Sep 26, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ernst & Young, LLP (EY), of New York, New York, protests the scope of corrective action taken by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, following EY's prior protest of the Army's award of a contract to Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-21-R-0049, for support of the Army Financial Improvement (AFI) program. EY argues that the corrective action is unreasonable, and that a solicitation amendment is required because the Army's needs have materially changed since issuing the solicitation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Ernst & Young, LLP File: B-423491.2 Date: September 26, 2025 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq. and Roee Talmor, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., and Jonathan C. Clark, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Guidehouse Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Kristen L. Smulovitz, Esq., and Toi M. Mason, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the scope of corrective action is denied where the corrective action reasonably allows for limited proposal revisions to address unavailable key personnel. 2. Protest challenging the agency's decision not to amend the solicitation to address alleged material changes in the agency's needs is dismissed as untimely. DECISION Ernst & Young, LLP (EY), of New York, New York, protests the scope of corrective action taken by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, following EY's prior protest of the Army's award of a contract to Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB‑21‑R‑0049, for support of the Army Financial Improvement (AFI) program. EY argues that the corrective action is unreasonable, and that a solicitation amendment is required because the Army's needs have materially changed since issuing the solicitation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On August 27, 2024, the Army issued the RFP under the procedures of Federal Acquisition parts 12 and 15, seeking proposals for support of the AFI program. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 1, 7, 128, 130. The Army requires an organization with expertise in accounting, auditing solutions, and change management support to assist in achieving an unmodified audit opinion of the Army's financial statements. Id. at 7. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract with a maximum value of $249,999,999 and a 3‑year ordering period, where orders would be issued on time‑and‑materials and fixed‑price bases. Id. at 1‑3, 7‑10. Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering technical, past performance, small business participation, and cost/price factors. Id. at 144. Relevant to the instant protest, the RFP identified key personnel positions and minimum requirements and qualifications for each position to be evaluated under the technical factor. Id. at 11‑13, 135, 145. The agency received three proposals by the submission deadline of October 8, 2024, including proposals from EY and Guidehouse.[1] Combined Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4. On April 7, 2025, the Army selected Guidehouse for award. Id. EY then received a debriefing. Id. On April 25, EY filed a protest with our Office arguing that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, certain of Guidehouse's proposed key personnel became unavailable prior to award of the contract, and Guidehouse had an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest (OCI). AR, Tab 7, First Protest at 22‑79. On May 22, the Army filed a notice of corrective action stating that it would reevaluate proposals, make a new award decision, and “take whatever additional corrective action measures are deemed appropriate[.]” AR, Tab 8, Notice of Corrective Action at 1‑2. On May 27, based on the agency's proposed corrective action, our Office dismissed the protest as academic. Ernst & Young, LLP, B‑423491, May 27, 2025 (unpublished decision). On June 2, after EY's protest was dismissed, Guidehouse informed the Army that on May 30, a key person it previously proposed had become unavailable. AR, Tab 9, Email from Guidehouse to Army at 1. The Army subsequently decided to open discussions allowing offerors to substitute unavailable key personnel.