In Veros Real Estate Solutions, LLC, B-423965.2, et al., July 22, 2026, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a protest challenging the Department of Veterans Affairs’ evaluation of the awardee’s past performance. For contractors, the decision is less about an isolated agency mistake than about how past-performance relevance is proved and challenged. GAO made clear that relevance cannot rest on matching labels in a CPARS narrative to PWS headings. Instead, the record must show what the contractor actually did, why that work was similar in scope, and how the agency reached that conclusion.
The Procurement and Award
The VA solicited automated appraisal management services to support its home-loan appraisal process. This small business set-aside contemplated a base period and four option years, with award based on technical approach, past performance, and price.
The solicitation required offerors to submit recent and relevant past-performance examples. Relevancy was defined as “a contract that is similar in scope of the requirements in the solicitation.” “Scope” was defined as “how well the requirements in the solicitation’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) align with those of the contract referenced.” Only references found recent and relevant could support a confidence rating. The RFP stated that the past performance evaluation would consider the requested past-performance questionnaires (PPQs) and could also include “data obtained from other sources.”
After corrective action, the VA again selected for award Lynch Consultants, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB). Both Lynch and Veros received “Exceptional” technical ratings and “Substantial Confidence” past-performance ratings. The source selection authority found the proposals essentially equal in technical merit and performance risk. Because the non-price factors were treated as comparable, Lynch’s lower price became the primary discriminator.
The VA Misread the Awardee’s CPARS Record
That “other sources” language became important here because neither offeror’s references returned PPQs. The VA therefore looked to CPARS, reviewing two reports for Veros and four for the Lynch team.
One of the Lynch CPARS reports became central to GAO’s decision. The report concerned Lynch’s prior HHS contract and included a narrative that first described the HHS program office’s broader responsibilities, including management of IT investments and program areas such as records management, training, and process improvement. The narrative then separately described the work covered by Lynch’s SOW, including performance metrics, report reconciliation, and management reporting.
Here is where the VA went wrong. The VA treated the HHS program office’s responsibilities as evidence that Lynch had performed those same activities and used them to find the HHS contract relevant to several PWS sections. Thus, GAO agreed with Veros that the agency had “fundamental[ly] misread[] . . . the referenced CPARS report.” Those activities were responsibilities of the HHS program office, not work performed by Lynch. Because the VA relied on those activities to find the contract relevant, the evaluation was found unreasonable.
The practical lesson is straightforward: CPARS narratives may describe the agency’s mission, the program office’s responsibilities, and the contractor’s actual work in the same passage. But evaluators must identify the actor before treating a listed activity as evidence of contractor experience.
PWS Citations Were Not Analysis
GAO identified a second, independent problem. Even if Lynch had performed the cited activities, the VA did not explain how they were similar to the solicited work.
For example, the VA relied on mere reference to “records management” in the CPARS to find the HHS contract relevant to a PWS section regarding the same subject matter. However, that PWS section contained more than eight pages of detailed IT and online-accessibility requirements. The evaluation did not identify the records Lynch allegedly managed, the systems or standards involved, or how the prior work aligned with those requirements. In the GAO’s view, the agency had effectively said if the CPARS mentions “records management” and the PWS also mentions “records management,” then the contract must be relevant. GAO held that this was not enough.
To be fair, GAO’s point was not that the VA needed a detailed formula for comparing these contracts. As in any procurement, the contemporaneous record simply had to show the substantive comparison required by the RFP. Without that explanation, GAO could not determine whether the prior work was similar.
Why the Error Mattered
Importantly, this was not an inconsequential evaluation error, competitive prejudice was found because the best-value decision relied on the conclusion that Lynch and Veros presented essentially equal performance risk. That finding allowed Lynch’s substantially lower evaluated price to control the tradeoff analysis.
Once Lynch’s past-performance rating was called into question, the tradeoff analysis’s foundation was undermined. A proper reevaluation could produce different past-performance conclusions and a different award decision.
GAO also observed that the VA appeared to have used the same conclusory approach when evaluating Veros’ past performance. It therefore recommended a new, adequately documented past-performance evaluation and a new source-selection decision, not simply a downgrade of Lynch.
If Lynch is no longer found to offer the best value, GAO recommended terminating its contract for convenience and awarding the contract to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value. GAO also recommended reimbursement of Veros’ reasonable protest costs, including attorneys’ fees.
Practical Takeaways for Government Contractors
Do not assume CPARS will fill gaps in your past-performance showing. Neither offeror’s references submitted the required PPQs, so the VA turned to CPARS reports for both offerors and for Lynch’s major subcontractor. That created the problem that drove the GAO to sustain the protest because the agency relied on brief CPARS narratives without adequately documenting what work the contractor performed or how that work matched the solicitation. Contractors should treat CPARS reports as supporting evidence, not as a substitute for tailored past-performance explanations or PPQs.
Do the relevance analysis for the evaluator. Similarly, a past-performance submission should identify the work your company performed and should not rely on the agency to reconstruct relevance from CPARS or “data obtained from other sources.” Provide a clear, logical path between your past-performance examples and the solicitation’s requirements, explaining the operational, technical, contractual, and other scope similarities.
When considering a protest, look for whether the agency matched words or actually compared work. GAO did not fault the VA for using CPARS, it faulted the VA for relying on conclusory references to PWS sections without documenting a substantive comparison between the prior work and the solicited requirements. A viable past-performance protest may exist where the record shows only that a CPARS narrative and a PWS use similar terms, but does not explain what the awardee actually did, whether the work was comparable in scope, or why the agency found it relevant.
If you have any questions about the foregoing or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Steven Herrera, Aron Beezley or Nathaniel Greeson.