Featured Stories
GAO Denies DexteriTech Protest Over VA IT Support Task Order Award to Client First
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by DexteriTech Solutions LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a task order to Client First Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, for administrative and operational support of the agency's information technology systems.
The task order was issued under Request for Task Execution Plan (RTEP), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside under the VA's Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) contract.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by DexteriTech Solutions LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a task order to Client First Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, for administrative and operational support of the agency's information technology systems.
The task order was issued under Request for Task Execution Plan (RTEP), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside under the VA's Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) contract.The contract covers support for messaging, collaboration, authentication, and configuration platforms, including Microsoft 365, OneDrive, and Microsoft Teams.
DexteriTech argued that the VA improperly evaluated its technical proposal, claiming the agency failed to adequately assess the feasibility of its approach and did not sufficiently document why its proposal received only an "acceptable" rating. The company also contended that Client First's significantly lower proposed price should have alerted the VA to performance risks, suggesting the awardee may have underestimated staffing or proposed unqualified personnel.
GAO found the agency's technical evaluation reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The record showed evaluators reviewed DexteriTech's proposed help desk operations, staffing strategy, management methodology, and personnel certifications before concluding the proposal met the solicitation's minimum requirements. GAO also rejected the argument that an acceptable rating required the identification of weaknesses or a separate risk assessment, noting that neither the solicitation nor its evaluation criteria imposed such a requirement.
The protester's challenge to the awardee's lower price was dismissed. GAO determined that the allegation amounted to a request for a price realism analysis, which the solicitation did not provide for. Because the procurement involved a firm-fixed-price task order, the agency was neither required nor permitted to conduct such an analysis absent an express solicitation provision.
Client First received an outstanding technical rating and proposed a price of approximately $21.95 million, while DexteriTech received an acceptable technical rating with a proposed price of about $31.65 million. GAO concluded that the VA reasonably selected Client First's higher-rated, lower-priced proposal as representing the best value.
The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424358%2Cb-424358.2
Publicly Released on: June 23, 2026 Published: June 16, 2026
Matthew J. Michaels, Esq., and Scott E. Pickens, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg LLP, for the protester.
William M. Jack, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., and Brian S. Yu, Esq., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, for Client First Technologies, Inc., the intervenor.
Mellany Alio, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Highlight Technologies Protest of FedTec Contract Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Highlight Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to FedTec LLC, Reston, Virginia, for enterprise data analytics shared services operations and maintenance support for the General Services Administration Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations issued in August 2025, sought a best-value contractor to provide professional support services for the agency's enterprise data analytics portfolio. The contract includes a one-year
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Highlight Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to FedTec LLC, Reston, Virginia, for enterprise data analytics shared services operations and maintenance support for the General Services Administration Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations issued in August 2025, sought a best-value contractor to provide professional support services for the agency's enterprise data analytics portfolio. The contract includes a one-yearbase period, four one-year option periods, and an optional six-month extension.
Following corrective action after an earlier protest, the General Services Administration reevaluated quotations from Highlight and FedTec. Highlight received higher technical ratings, earning "Excellent" in technical capability, staffing, and past performance, while FedTec received "Good" ratings across those categories. However, FedTec submitted a significantly lower evaluated price of about $33.9 million, compared with Highlight's roughly $42.9 million.
The source selection authority concluded that Highlight's technical advantages did not justify paying an additional $8.95 million, selecting FedTec as offering the best overall value.
Highlight argued that the agency improperly evaluated pricing after adding a $2 million annual ceiling for optional labor line items that had not been expressly included in the solicitation's pricing schedule. The company contended this change misled it into submitting a higher-priced quotation.
GAO acknowledged that the agency's addition of the ceiling price during evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation's language. However, the watchdog found Highlight failed to demonstrate it suffered competitive prejudice or that it would have had a substantial chance of winning the award absent the error. GAO concluded that all vendors had received the same information and were free to develop their own pricing strategies based on business judgment.
The decision also rejected Highlight's challenge to the best-value tradeoff, finding the agency reasonably documented why FedTec's lower-priced proposal represented the better value despite its lower technical ratings.
Finally, GAO dismissed Highlight's allegation that FedTec violated the Procurement Integrity Act. The decision found the protester's claims--that FedTec contacted Highlight employees before award while representing itself as the likely winner--did not credibly establish that any government official improperly disclosed protected procurement information or otherwise violated federal law.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424060.2
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: May 22, 2026
C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Cash W. Carter, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester.
Taylor R. Holt, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for FedTec, LLC, the intervenor.
Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies InnoVet Protest, Upholding Elimination From NASA Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by InnoVet Technologies LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging its elimination from a major NASA procurement for government-wide information technology products and services.
The protest involved request for proposals (No. 80TECH24R0001) for the sixth generation of NASA's Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity program with a maximum ordering value of $20 billion over a 10-year ordering period.
InnoVet submitted proposals for Categories
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by InnoVet Technologies LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging its elimination from a major NASA procurement for government-wide information technology products and services.
The protest involved request for proposals (No. 80TECH24R0001) for the sixth generation of NASA's Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity program with a maximum ordering value of $20 billion over a 10-year ordering period.
InnoVet submitted proposals for CategoriesB and C, covering enterprise-wide IT services and mission-based IT services. NASA eliminated both proposals after determining they failed to provide a required management approach narrative describing the company's corporate cybersecurity supply chain risk management (C-SCRM) processes, IT security practices for contractor-acquired property, and how it remains current on supply chain security and cybersecurity standards.
The company argued that other portions of its proposals--including its completed C-SCRM attestation form and technical approach narrative--demonstrated its cybersecurity capabilities and should have satisfied the solicitation's requirements despite the absence of a separate management approach narrative.
GAO disagreed, finding that the solicitation explicitly required a dedicated narrative addressing the offeror's own corporate cybersecurity management processes. The decision noted that the attestation form merely documented compliance with specified security controls and did not explain the company's corporate risk management processes, participation in supply chain security activities, or methods for staying current on cybersecurity practices. Likewise, the technical approach focused on how InnoVet would provide cybersecurity services to NASA rather than how it manages its own corporate cybersecurity risks.
The decision emphasized that the solicitation required offerors to respond to every factor, subfactor, and required element of the mission suitability volume, warning that failure to do so would render a proposal ineligible for award. Because InnoVet omitted the required management approach narrative and failed to demonstrate that the missing information appeared elsewhere in its proposals, NASA reasonably assigned both proposals a "no confidence" rating and excluded them from further consideration.
GAO concluded that offerors bear the responsibility for submitting proposals containing all required information and found NASA's evaluation and elimination of InnoVet's proposals to be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. As a result, the protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423306.20
Publicly Released on: June 22, 2026 Published: June 16, 2026
Darrell Hernandez for the protester.
Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., and Stephen T. O'Neal, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies AVMAC Protest Over Marine Corps Aircraft Maintenance Task Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by AVMAC LLC, Chesapeake, Virginia, challenging the General Services Administration's award of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI) Inc., Rockville, Maryland, for maintenance services supporting the U.S. Marine Corps' MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft.
The task order, issued under GSA's ASTRO multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, was awarded on a best-value basis, with non-price factors significantly more important than price. However, after evaluating proposals, the agency
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by AVMAC LLC, Chesapeake, Virginia, challenging the General Services Administration's award of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI) Inc., Rockville, Maryland, for maintenance services supporting the U.S. Marine Corps' MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft.
The task order, issued under GSA's ASTRO multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, was awarded on a best-value basis, with non-price factors significantly more important than price. However, after evaluating proposals, the agencyconcluded that the competing offers provided substantially similar technical value, making price the deciding factor. STI submitted the lowest evaluated price at approximately $31.4 million, while AVMAC's proposal was priced at about $35.7 million.
AVMAC argued that GSA improperly evaluated proposals, unfairly conducted discussions solely with STI during corrective action, and effectively converted the procurement into a lowest-priced technically acceptable competition rather than performing a proper best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that the agency reasonably evaluated AVMAC's proposal and acted within its discretion. Although AVMAC received several strengths and no weaknesses, GAO said agencies are not required to assign the highest possible confidence ratings simply because a proposal lacks deficiencies. The record showed GSA reasonably concluded that some aspects of AVMAC's proposal merely met, rather than exceeded, solicitation requirements.
GAO also upheld the agency's corporate experience evaluation. AVMAC claimed GSA improperly favored tiltrotor aircraft experience, but GAO found the solicitation explicitly indicated that experience maintaining tiltrotor aircraft would be considered more relevant than other aircraft types. As a result, GSA reasonably distinguished between AVMAC's MV-22 maintenance experience and its experience maintaining fixed-wing aircraft.
The watchdog further found that GSA properly limited corrective-action discussions to STI. GAO concluded STI had previously not received meaningful discussions regarding an undiscovered proposal deficiency, while AVMAC had already been afforded meaningful discussions. Allowing STI to correct only that issue merely placed it in the same competitive position as other offerors.
Finally, GAO determined the agency conducted a valid best-value tradeoff. Although the source selection document stated that "no tradeoff was necessary," the contemporaneous record demonstrated that GSA compared the strengths, risks, and prices of competing proposals before concluding that AVMAC's limited technical advantages did not justify paying roughly a 12 percent price premium over lower-priced competitors.
GAO also dismissed AVMAC's challenges to STI's evaluation, finding the company was not an interested party because two lower-priced offerors would have ranked ahead of AVMAC even if STI had been eliminated from consideration.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424201.3%2Cb-424201.4
Publicly Released on: June 22, 2026 Published: June 15, 2026
J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester.
Andrew Sinn, Esq., and Jarrett Cook, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Accura Engineering Request for Additional Protest Cost Reimbursement in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract Dispute
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Accura Engineering and Consulting Services Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for reimbursement of additional protest costs arising from its challenge to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract award for quality assurance services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The procurement sought a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for monitoring and overseeing construction projects. The contract was awarded to Radise International L.C., Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, following a best-value tradeoff.
Accura
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Accura Engineering and Consulting Services Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for reimbursement of additional protest costs arising from its challenge to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract award for quality assurance services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The procurement sought a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for monitoring and overseeing construction projects. The contract was awarded to Radise International L.C., Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, following a best-value tradeoff.
Accuraoriginally protested multiple aspects of the evaluation, including the agency's assessments of technical approach, past performance, price, and the resulting best-value determination. During an alternative dispute resolution conference, a GAO attorney advised that the protest would likely be sustained on two price-related grounds because the Army failed to evaluate price realism for the seed task order as required by the solicitation and failed to consider option-year pricing in its best-value tradeoff.
Following that assessment, the Army agreed to take corrective action by issuing a new solicitation with revised price evaluation methodology and allowing offerors to submit new proposals. The agency also agreed to reimburse Accura's costs associated with the clearly meritorious price evaluation and best-value tradeoff challenges, as well as the costs of pursuing the reimbursement request itself.
Accura, however, sought reimbursement for costs related to its unsuccessful technical evaluation challenges, arguing those issues were intertwined with the successful price realism challenge because both involved the agency's assessment of proposal risk.
GAO rejected that argument, finding the technical evaluation allegations were based on different facts and legal theories than the successful price evaluation claims. The decision noted that the technical protest focused on whether the agency properly assigned ratings and evaluated proposal strengths and weaknesses, while the successful protest grounds concerned the Army's failure to follow the solicitation's required price evaluation procedures.
Because the technical evaluation issues were readily severable from the clearly meritorious price-related challenges, GAO concluded they did not qualify for additional reimbursement. As a result, the office denied Accura's request for protest costs beyond those the Army had already agreed to pay.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424049.4
Publicly Released on: June 25, 2026 Published: June 23, 2026
Evan C. Williams, Esq., Diana Lyn Curtis Shutzer, Esq., and Nicholas Feldstern, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the requester.
Timothy A. Holliday, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DarkStar Intelligence Protest Against Air Force Award to Starlo Innovation Denied by GAO
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DarkStar Intelligence LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Starlo Innovation LLC for intelligence and operational support services.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside under the General Services Administration's OASIS+ contract vehicle, sought contractor support for the Narcotics and Transnational Crime Support Center, which assists the Department of Defense and law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking, terrorism and transnational
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DarkStar Intelligence LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Starlo Innovation LLC for intelligence and operational support services.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside under the General Services Administration's OASIS+ contract vehicle, sought contractor support for the Narcotics and Transnational Crime Support Center, which assists the Department of Defense and law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking, terrorism and transnationalorganized crime.
DarkStar argued that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated its proposal, relied on unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to properly consider price in its best-value tradeoff decision.
GAO rejected those claims, finding the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The watchdog concluded the Air Force reasonably assigned DarkStar's proposal a "good" rating under the technical approach and mission understanding factor because evaluators found its proposal demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirements but lacked the deeper, partner-focused understanding of law enforcement organizations sought by the solicitation. That shortcoming led evaluators to identify a low-to-moderate performance risk stemming from the potential need for additional government oversight.
GAO also dismissed DarkStar's claim that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria. The decision found that the solicitation explicitly required offerors to demonstrate detailed knowledge of how law enforcement agencies' missions, structures and cultures interact with the Department of Defense. As a result, the agency's assessment of DarkStar's proposal as insufficiently partner-centric was logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria.
Finally, GAO rejected DarkStar's argument that the Air Force ignored price in selecting the higher-priced proposal from Starlo. DarkStar proposed a price of about $73 million, while Starlo's proposal totaled roughly $80.4 million, a premium of approximately 9%.
GAO found that the Air Force documented its consideration of both technical merit and price, concluding that Starlo's superior technical proposal and lower performance risk justified the additional cost. The decision held that the best-value tradeoff was rational, adequately documented and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme.
As a result, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424306
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: June 3, 2026
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester.
Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Starlo Innovation, LLC, the intervenor.
Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Autumn Hazy, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Altus Technology Solutions Protest Against Air Force Contract Award to VetPride-EMI Denied
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Altus Technology Solutions, Hanover, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a contract for operations, maintenance and support services at primary training ranges to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside, sought a fixed-price contract with a nine-month base period and four one-year option periods. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, with program management weighted significantly more heavily than price.
Altus
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Altus Technology Solutions, Hanover, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a contract for operations, maintenance and support services at primary training ranges to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside, sought a fixed-price contract with a nine-month base period and four one-year option periods. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, with program management weighted significantly more heavily than price.
Altusreceived a "Good" rating under the program management factor and proposed a price of about $106.8 million. VetPride-EMI received an "Acceptable" rating but submitted the lower-priced proposal at approximately $91.1 million. The Air Force determined that VetPride-EMI's proposal represented the best value because Altus's technical advantages did not justify its roughly 17 percent price premium.
GAO rejected Altus's claims that the Air Force improperly evaluated proposals under the program management factor. Altus argued that the agency overlooked weaknesses in VetPride-EMI's quality control approach and failed to recognize additional strengths in Altus's proposal, including its use of incumbent personnel. GAO found that the Air Force reasonably evaluated both proposals in accordance with the solicitation and that Altus's arguments largely reflected disagreement with the agency's judgment rather than evidence of an unreasonable evaluation.
The watchdog also denied Altus's challenge to the Air Force's price evaluation. Altus contended that VetPride-EMI's labor rates and equipment pricing were inconsistent with solicitation requirements. GAO concluded that the solicitation required the agency to evaluate only each offeror's total overall evaluated price rather than underlying labor rates or pricing details. Because the procurement did not call for a price realism analysis, the Air Force was not required to examine those cost breakdowns.
Finally, GAO rejected Altus's argument that VetPride-EMI was ineligible for award because of alleged errors in its System for Award Management registration. The decision found that the joint venture maintained an active SAM registration throughout the procurement and that any inaccuracies concerning ownership information or mentor-protege representations were, at most, minor informalities that did not invalidate the award or prejudice other offerors.
As a result, GAO denied the protest in its entirety, allowing the Air Force's contract award to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions to stand.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424316%2Cb-424316.2
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: June 12, 2026
Craig A. Holman, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Adrienne Jackson, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester.
J. Alex Ward, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Jillian I. Stern, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Michael J. Farr, Esq., W. Jacob Worthan, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
