Skipping ahead can leave you a step behind. In this edition of The Bid Protest Beat, Partner Stephanie Wilson explores a recent bid protest decision from the GAO that highlights why offerors should carefully track all requirements and terms in each solicitation amendment as it is issued and should not assume the final amendment supersedes all prior changes.
Hair By Allure, LLC d/b/a Allure Rejuvenation Center, B-424563 (Aug 26, 2026)
In October 2025, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a small business set-aside, fixed-price, multiple-award, IDIQ contract for orthotic softgoods and prosthetic supplies with up to 10 years of contract performance. Offerors were instructed to submit their proposals in two volumes with specific instructions for each submission.
The RFP was amended four times before proposals were due. Hair By Allure, LLC d/b/a Allure Rejuvenation Center (ARC), a small business in Philadelphia, submitted an initial proposal in response to the RFP. Following receipt of offeror proposals, the VA held discussions with all competitive offerors and sent a letter to ARC on February 20, 2026, notifying it that its proposal was deficient and lacked a majority of the required information outlined in the solicitation’s instructions.
On March 16, 2026, the VA requested final revised proposals (FPR) for the solicitation, noting that “[o]fferors are advised that NOT following the Instructions to Offerors in the solicitation 36S79725R0002 for their FPR’s shall place an otherwise acceptable proposal in jeopardy of being excluded from the competitive range and no longer being considered for award.”
On May 18, 2026, ARC was notified that its proposal was excluded from the competition because it was technically unacceptable for failing to comply with the RFP’s instructions. In ARC’s debriefing, the VA noted that, among other issues, each volume of its proposal lacked several essential components and the final proposal did not include a signed copy of Amendment #3.
ARC filed a protest with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), arguing that the VA unreasonably excluded its proposal because Amendment #3 was immaterial to the solicitation and was superseded by Amendment #4, which ARC did include a signed copy of in its submission.
The VA countered that Amendment #3 contained various material changes to the solicitation, including providing estimated product quantities, responding to offerors’ questions, updating multiple attachments and removing others, and including a new requirement that offerors who provide products through the FSS must match or beat the prices offered there. Amendment #4 updated just one attachment, but did not supersede the other attachments and terms in Amendment #3.
In determining whether an amendment is material or not, GAO considers whether the amendment imposes new legal obligations different from the original solicitation, or if it has a “more than negligible impact on price, quantity, quality, or delivery.” Upon review, GAO determined that Amendment #3 was material because it added and modified solicitation terms impacting both quantity and pricing that were not superseded by Amendment #4. ARC’s protest was denied and its proposal was excluded from the VA’s competition.gible.
What Can Government Contractors Learn From This?
In this case, a potential multiple-award IDIQ contract with up to a decade of performance was lost due to an avoidable failure to follow instructions. Offerors need to review each solicitation amendment carefully. Subsequent solicitation amendments do not necessarily render prior amendments moot. Understanding what terms of the solicitation have (and have not) changed, acknowledging the amendments as required by the solicitation’s instructions, and strategically incorporating the new requirements into your proposal are essential to avoiding technical exclusion on contracts an offeror could otherwise easily perform.
Have questions about how to help your govcon business navigate the bid protest process? Contact Stephanie Wilson at swilson@berenzweiglaw.com.
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
©2026 Berenzweig Leonard LLP. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Berenzweig Leonard and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.