There is a number in every federal price evaluation that the bidder never sees until the debriefing, and by then the only question is how far off it you were. Here is what being 120 percent off it looks like.
GAO B-424396 and B-424396.2, decided June 8, 2026 and released to the public docket this week. Patriot Contract Services, LLC, a small business in Concord, California, protested the Coast Guard’s award of multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts under RFP No. 70Z02326R93280001 for transportation and logistics support services via time charter lease. In plain language: boats, with crews, hired by the day, to carry Coast Guard people and gear underway and in port.
Five companies got contracts on March 27, 2026: Bordelon Marine of Lockport, Louisiana; Federated Maritime of Boca Raton; Galliano Marine Services of Cut Off, Louisiana; Hornbeck Offshore Operators of Covington, Louisiana; and ThayerMahan of Groton, Connecticut. Patriot did not, and the reason was entirely on the price page.
The Number Nobody Sees
The Coast Guard built an independent government cost estimate, the IGCE, from three sources: responses to a request for information, which ranged from 28,000 to 80,000 dollars a day and averaged about 54,000; commercial offshore support vessel day rates supplied by the Navy; and historical charter prices from National Science Foundation research vessels. The commercial and historical sources averaged 39,715 and 41,350 a day. The agency blended those, split the estimate by vessel size, and added 9,000 a day to each size for Coast Guard specific requirements.
| Vessel size | IGCE day rate, base period |
|---|---|
| Small | 24,084.49 dollars |
| Medium | 36,410.50 dollars |
| Large | 50,176.45 dollars |
Then the rule that decided the protest. Any proposed rate 20 percent or more above the IGCE for its size class triggered a second look at whether the vessel offered enough extra to justify the premium. The RFP had said only that prices would be compared with the IGCE, historical prices and other relevant data. The 20 percent figure was not in the solicitation.
Where Patriot Landed
Patriot proposed three vessels. The decision redacts their names. It does not redact the prices.
| Vessel | Class | Patriot’s rate | IGCE | Over the estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vessel 1 | Small | 53,000.00 | 24,084.49 | 120 percent |
| Vessel 2 | Small | 53,000.00 | 24,084.49 | 120 percent |
| Vessel 3 | Large | 62,220.00 | 50,176.45 | 24 percent |
All three tripped the 20 percent trigger. For the two small vessels the agency found they carried eleven additional accommodations, meaning bunks, over the requirement, and concluded that eleven beds did not justify paying 2.2 times the estimate. To be eligible for award an offeror needed at least two vessels found to carry complete and reasonable pricing. Patriot had none.
The scale of the competition is worth a sentence. Eighteen offerors proposed more than a hundred vessels. Seven of those offerors, with 71 vessels between them, cleared the technical gate and reached the price evaluation. Patriot was one of the seven and was the one that priced itself out.
The Two Arguments, And Why Each Failed
First: the estimate and the 20 percent rule were arbitrary and unstated. Patriot pointed at the RFI responses, whose midpoint was 54,000, and argued that a 45,000 ceiling built from that data made no sense. GAO’s answer was that the protester had ignored the other two thirds of the market research. The commercial and historical sources sat near 40,000, and on the totality of the research a 45,000 high end estimate was reasonable. On the 20 percent rule, the decision restates the standing position: an agency does not have to publish its price analysis method as long as the method is reasonable, and the record showed the threshold was a trigger for a closer look, not a mechanical cutoff.
Patriot also argued the agency should have compared its prices to the other offerors, since FAR 15.404-1 names comparison of proposed prices as a preferred technique. GAO agreed it is preferred and said that is not the same as required. Quoting the decision: “Where the agency’s price analysis methods are permitted under FAR 15.404-1 and otherwise reasonable, we find no reason to conclude that the agency’s failure to utilize all available price analysis techniques was unreasonable.”
Second: disparate treatment. This is the argument with real teeth, because two of the awardees also had vessels priced more than 20 percent above the IGCE and were found reasonable anyway. One awardee had three such vessels. Another had six. Why them and not Patriot?
The record answered it. The first awardee’s premium vessels carried additional deck equipment, a higher capacity crane and a flight deck beyond what the statement of work required. The second’s carried larger cranes and extra accommodations. Patriot’s vessels, the protester argued, had a stern mounted A frame and deck winch, removable side bulwarks, a 22 foot open transom, GPS assisted dynamic positioning, zero discharge capability and, on one vessel, a partnership with a local operator worth a geographic premium.
Those may all be real advantages. They are not the same advantages. GAO’s test for disparate treatment is that the protester’s feature has to be substantively indistinguishable from, or nearly identical to the one the awardee was credited for. Patriot did not claim its boats had flight decks or bigger cranes. It claimed different things were worth money. In GAO’s words, “mere disagreement over such preferences does not render the assessment unreasonable or serve as sufficient evidence of disparate treatment.”
The Debriefing Typo
One more thread. In the debriefing the Coast Guard told Patriot its large vessel was priced 24 percent below the IGCE. It was 24 percent above. Patriot said it relied on the mistake to its detriment and asked for its protest costs. GAO dismissed that piece outright: a wrong number in a debriefing is not a violation of a procurement statute or regulation, and a claim that is not founded on one is outside its jurisdiction under the Competition in Contracting Act. The typo cost the agency nothing.
What A Small Business Takes From This
The estimate is the market, not the RFI. Patriot anchored on the RFI responses because those were the numbers it could see. The agency anchored on commercial and historical rates because those were the numbers it could defend. When the two disagree by 15,000 dollars a day, the one written down in the file wins.
A premium has to buy something the agency already said it wanted. Extra bunks, an A frame and a wide transom were not in the statement of work as valued features. A flight deck and a heavy crane, apparently, were closer to it. The vessels that got paid over the estimate were paid for capability the evaluators could tie to the requirement.
Disparate treatment needs the same feature, not a comparable one. This is the rule that ends most of these protests. Different extras priced differently is a judgment call, and GAO does not second guess judgment calls.
Two small vessels at 53,000 a day, against an estimate of 24,084.49. The whole case is that gap, and eleven beds was never going to fill it.