GAO Bid Protests
Here's a look at news stories involving federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel
Featured Stories
XLCare Pharmaceuticals Protest Denied as GAO Upholds AvKARE Contract Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by XLCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia, challenging the award of a Defense Logistics Agency contract to AvKARE LLC, Pulaski, Tennessee, for potassium chloride tablets.
The dispute stemmed from a reverse auction conducted under a 2024 solicitation seeking a fixed-price contract to supply the Department of Defense's pharmaceutical prime vendor program. XLCare argued that a malfunction in the auction platform prevented it from submitting a final, lower bid before the auction
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by XLCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia, challenging the award of a Defense Logistics Agency contract to AvKARE LLC, Pulaski, Tennessee, for potassium chloride tablets.
The dispute stemmed from a reverse auction conducted under a 2024 solicitation seeking a fixed-price contract to supply the Department of Defense's pharmaceutical prime vendor program. XLCare argued that a malfunction in the auction platform prevented it from submitting a final, lower bid before the auctionclosed and alleged that the agency deviated from stated procedures.
In its Feb. 17, 2026 decision, the GAO found no evidence that the reverse auction system failed. Instead, the record showed that XLCare's final bid attempt was received after the auction's closing time. The decision emphasized that offerors bear responsibility for submitting bids early enough to account for possible transmission delays, noting that even small timing gaps can determine whether a bid is accepted.
The GAO also rejected XLCare's claim that the Defense Logistics Agency improperly shortened the auction. The watchdog concluded that the agency correctly applied its rule extending the auction only when bids are submitted within the final seven minutes. Because one of AvKARE's bids was placed outside that window after a prior extension had already reset the closing time, no additional extension was required.
At the close of bidding, AvKARE held the lowest price at $39.51 million and was awarded the contract as the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price.
Separately, the GAO dismissed XLCare's challenge to the auction's $150,000 minimum bid decrement requirement as untimely. The decision found that the rule had been clearly communicated through training materials, system displays, and auction terms that XLCare accepted before participating. اعتراضs to such terms, the GAO noted, must be raised before bidding begins.
Finally, the GAO declined to question the agency's decision not to reopen the auction after initially considering it, citing the contracting officer's broad discretion and the agency's determination that no system error occurred.
The ruling leaves the contract award to AvKARE intact.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424026%2Cb-424026.2
Publicly Released on: March 4, 2026 Published: Feb. 17, 2026
Daniel H. Petkoff, Esq., James W. Kim, Esq., Cate Baskin, Esq., and Eyasu Yirdaw, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester.
Julie M. Nichols, Esq., Rimon PC, for AvKARE, LLC, the intervenor.
Mariam W. Ibrahim, Esq., and Alexander J. Minor, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Karna Protest Denied as GAO Upholds Award to General Dynamics Information Technology
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Karna LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, challenging the award of a federal contract to General Dynamics Information Technology Inc., Falls Church, Virginia, for administration of a major federal health benefits program.
The contract, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control, covers third-party administrator services for the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides care to individuals affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The procurement sought to consolidate
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Karna LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, challenging the award of a federal contract to General Dynamics Information Technology Inc., Falls Church, Virginia, for administration of a major federal health benefits program.
The contract, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control, covers third-party administrator services for the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides care to individuals affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The procurement sought to consolidatemultiple support functions into a single, more efficient contract vehicle with a potential 10-year performance period.
Karna, the incumbent prime contractor on a related bridge contract, argued that the agency conducted discussions unfairly, improperly evaluated proposals, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. In a decision dated Feb. 20, 2026, the GAO rejected all of the protester's claims.
A central issue was Karna's allegation that the agency treated offerors unequally by holding an additional round of discussions only with General Dynamics Information Technology. The GAO found this approach consistent with the solicitation, which allowed offerors to propose "betterments"--enhancements beyond baseline requirements--and stated such proposals would be discussed separately. Because only General Dynamics proposed betterments, the agency reasonably limited additional discussions to that firm.
The GAO also upheld the agency's evaluation of technical proposals, concluding it was reasonable and aligned with the solicitation. While Karna challenged ratings under multiple technical areas, the decision emphasized that agencies are not required to discuss every minor weakness and that disagreement with evaluators' judgments does not establish error.
On past performance, the GAO found no competitive prejudice, even assuming minor issues in the agency's assessment. Both Karna and General Dynamics received top confidence ratings, and the protester failed to show that any alleged evaluation flaw would have changed the outcome.
The watchdog further rejected claims that the agency failed to assess price realism, finding the record supported the agency's analysis.
Ultimately, the Centers for Disease Control selected General Dynamics based on its higher technical ratings across key factors and its lower evaluated price of approximately $325 million, compared with Karna's roughly $341 million proposal. The GAO concluded the agency reasonably determined that General Dynamics offered the best value to the government.
The decision leaves the contract award intact, marking the latest chapter in a multi-year procurement effort to modernize administration of the World Trade Center Health Program.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424039%2Cb-424039.2%2Cb-424039.3
Publicly Released on: March 5, 2026 Published: Feb. 20, 2026
Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., Roee Talmor, Esq., Sarah Belmont, Esq., and Dustin Vesey, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester.
Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Elizabeth M.D. Pullin, Esq., Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Aime JH. Joo, Esq., Sierra A. Paskins, Esq., and Megan C. Bodenhamer, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., the intervenor.
Joon K. Hong, Esq., and Brandon Dell'Aglio, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses AAA General Contractors' Reconsideration Request in Veterans Affairs Procurement Dispute
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a request for reconsideration filed by AAA General Contractors LLC, El Paso, Texas, in its challenge to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' rejection of the firm's proposal under a construction services solicitation.
In a March 6, 2026 decision, the GAO concluded that AAA failed to meet the strict standard required to overturn a prior ruling issued in November 2025. That earlier decision upheld the VA's rejection of AAA's proposal for omitting a required certification tied to limitations on subcontracting.
The procurement
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a request for reconsideration filed by AAA General Contractors LLC, El Paso, Texas, in its challenge to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' rejection of the firm's proposal under a construction services solicitation.
In a March 6, 2026 decision, the GAO concluded that AAA failed to meet the strict standard required to overturn a prior ruling issued in November 2025. That earlier decision upheld the VA's rejection of AAA's proposal for omitting a required certification tied to limitations on subcontracting.
The procurementsought proposals for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract covering maintenance, repair, and construction services at VA medical facilities over a five-year ordering period. The solicitation expressly incorporated a clause requiring offerors to submit a signed certification confirming compliance with subcontracting limits. The clause warned that proposals lacking the certification would be deemed ineligible for award.
AAA argued in its original protest that the certification requirement was not clearly stated in the solicitation instructions and that its omission should have been treated as a minor error that could be corrected through clarifications. The GAO rejected those arguments, finding the certification was a material requirement and that failure to include it rendered the proposal unacceptable.
In seeking reconsideration, AAA asserted that the GAO overlooked key legal and factual issues, including claims that the solicitation was ambiguous and that the agency failed to adequately notify the firm of a later amendment.
The GAO dismissed the request, explaining that reconsideration requires showing either a clear error of fact or law in the prior decision or presenting new information that would change the outcome. Instead, the office found that AAA largely repeated arguments already raised and considered.
The decision emphasized that disagreement with a prior ruling or dissatisfaction with how arguments were addressed does not justify reconsideration. It also reaffirmed that solicitation requirements must be read as a whole, and that the location of a requirement within a solicitation does not diminish its enforceability.
Additionally, the GAO declined to revisit issues related to a solicitation amendment, noting that the rejection of AAA's proposal was based solely on the missing certification and that any amendment-related arguments would not alter the outcome.
The ruling leaves intact the prior decision supporting the Department of Veterans Affairs' rejection of AAA's proposal.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423842.7
Publicly Released on: March 9, 2026 Published: March 6, 2026
Edgar Skertchly for the requester.
Natica C. Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies DOCS Health Protest Over Secret Service Medical Services Contract Award to Acuity
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Dentrust Dental International Inc., dba DOCS Health, Pipersville, Pennsylvania, challenging the award of a federal contract to Acuity International LLC, Reston, Virginia, for medical examination services supporting the U.S. Secret Service.
The contract, issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, covers medical evaluations for Secret Service personnel and applicants nationwide. Dentrust argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and treated the two competitors unequally.
In its February
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Dentrust Dental International Inc., dba DOCS Health, Pipersville, Pennsylvania, challenging the award of a federal contract to Acuity International LLC, Reston, Virginia, for medical examination services supporting the U.S. Secret Service.
The contract, issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, covers medical evaluations for Secret Service personnel and applicants nationwide. Dentrust argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and treated the two competitors unequally.
In its February6, 2026 decision, the GAO concluded that the agency's evaluation was reasonable, properly documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The watchdog also found that any potential errors did not competitively harm Dentrust.
A central issue in the protest involved cybersecurity requirements tied to the handling of sensitive medical data. The solicitation required that any cloud-based system used to store or process such data be authorized under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program at the moderate level.
Dentrust proposed a cloud-based system but did not demonstrate that the system itself--distinct from its hosting platform--met the required authorization. The GAO agreed with the agency that the solicitation clearly required both the platform and the contractor's system to be authorized.
In contrast, Acuity proposed a non-cloud, web-based system hosted in a corporate data center. Under the solicitation, such systems were not required to meet the same cloud authorization standard but instead needed to have an approved authority to operate from a federal agency. The record showed that Acuity's system had received such approvals from agencies including the Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection.
The GAO rejected Dentrust's claim of unequal treatment, finding that the differences in evaluation stemmed from materially different technical approaches rather than inconsistent standards.
Ultimately, Acuity received higher confidence ratings across all non-price evaluation factors and offered a lower price--approximately $11 million compared to Dentrust's nearly $12 million proposal. Based on this combination, the agency selected Acuity for award.
The GAO emphasized that disagreement with an agency's judgment does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable, concluding there was no basis to sustain the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423938%2Cb-423938.2
Publicly Released on: March 11, 2026 Published: March 6, 2026
Eric W. Leonard, Esq., Matthew Howell, Esq., and Rachel Schwartz, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, for the protester.
Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Ken M Kanzawa, Esq., and Zohra Tejani, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Acuity International, LLC, the intervenor.
Michael H. Noyes, Esq., and Jessica Chen, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Coastal Management Solutions' Protest Over Navy Task Order Award to Strategic Data Systems
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Coastal Management Solutions Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a task order to Strategic Data Systems Inc., Keller, Texas, for MyNavy Career Center support services.
The procurement, issued by the Naval Supply Systems Command under request for quotations No. N0018924R3088, sought a contractor to provide customer service and administrative support for the Navy's MyNavy Career Center, a key component of the service's broader human resources modernization effort. The competition
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Coastal Management Solutions Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a task order to Strategic Data Systems Inc., Keller, Texas, for MyNavy Career Center support services.
The procurement, issued by the Naval Supply Systems Command under request for quotations No. N0018924R3088, sought a contractor to provide customer service and administrative support for the Navy's MyNavy Career Center, a key component of the service's broader human resources modernization effort. The competitionwas conducted as a small business set-aside among SeaPort Next Generation contract holders.
Coastal argued that the Navy improperly evaluated quotations and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision favoring Strategic Data Systems (SDS). The protester alleged unequal treatment in the technical evaluation, flaws in the past performance assessment, and errors in the agency's judgment that SDS's higher-priced quotation--about 8.4 percent more than Coastal's--offered better value.
GAO rejected these arguments, finding that the Navy's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's criteria. The decision emphasized that agencies have broad discretion in assessing technical proposals and past performance, particularly in task order competitions.
On the technical evaluation, GAO found no basis to question the Navy's conclusion that both firms' approaches were strong, while SDS offered slightly greater benefits in areas such as knowledge management and workforce processes. GAO also determined that Coastal failed to demonstrate unequal treatment, noting that differences in evaluation results stemmed from differences in the firms' proposed approaches.
Regarding past performance, GAO upheld the Navy's judgment that SDS's experience more closely matched the scope of the solicitation. While Coastal disagreed with the agency's conclusions, GAO reiterated that such disagreement alone does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.
Finally, GAO found the best-value tradeoff decision to be well-documented and rational. The Navy reasonably concluded that SDS's technical advantages and stronger past performance justified the price premium, particularly given the importance of the requirement to support sailors and their families.
As a result, GAO denied the protest in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423344.3
Publicly Released on: March 9, 2026 Published: Feb. 24, 2026
Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., Williams Mullen, PC, for the protester.
Richard B. Oliver, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Strategic Data Systems, Inc., the intervenor.
Eric Lofquist, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
