Featured Stories
GAO Denies Patriot Contract Services Protest of Coast Guard Vessel Contracts
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by Patriot Contract Services LLC, Concord, California, challenging the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard for transportation and logistics support services.
The contracts were awarded under a request for proposals issued for services to support Coast Guard operations through time charter leases. The contracts are intended to cover the operation and maintenance of vessels and assist Coast Guard personnel with missions while underway
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by Patriot Contract Services LLC, Concord, California, challenging the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard for transportation and logistics support services.
The contracts were awarded under a request for proposals issued for services to support Coast Guard operations through time charter leases. The contracts are intended to cover the operation and maintenance of vessels and assist Coast Guard personnel with missions while underwayand in port.
The solicitation called for awards to all qualified offerors offering fair and reasonable prices. To be eligible, an offeror had to propose at least two vessels with complete and reasonable pricing. The Coast Guard evaluated proposals based on price, technical capability, management plan and past performance.
For price evaluation, offerors were required to provide daily rates for each proposed vessel. The agency evaluated prices for completeness and reasonableness by comparing them with an independent government cost estimate, historical prices for similar services and other relevant pricing information.
The Coast Guard received proposals from 18 offerors covering more than 100 vessels. Seven offerors proposed 71 vessels that were evaluated for price reasonableness, including three vessels proposed by Patriot.
The agency determined that two of Patriot's vessels were small and one was large. Patriot proposed daily rates of $53,000 for each of its small vessels, compared with an agency estimate of $24,084.49, and $62,220 for its large vessel, compared with an estimate of $50,176.45.
Because the rates for the two small vessels were 120 percent above the agency's estimate, the Coast Guard conducted additional analysis to determine whether the vessels offered benefits sufficient to justify the price premiums. The agency found that the vessels provided 11 additional accommodations each but determined that the added capacity did not justify the higher prices. Patriot therefore did not meet the requirement to propose at least two vessels with reasonable pricing and was found ineligible for award.
Patriot argued that the agency's independent government cost estimate and 20 percent threshold for additional price scrutiny were arbitrary and amounted to unstated evaluation criteria. It also argued that the Coast Guard should have compared its prices directly with those proposed by other offerors.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that the agency reasonably developed its estimates using market research, commercial vessel cost data and historical government charter rates. The agency was not required to disclose its specific price-analysis methodology, and its 20 percent threshold served as a trigger for additional review rather than an automatic basis for rejecting a price.
GAO also rejected Patriot's claim of disparate treatment. Two other awardees proposed vessels priced more than 20 percent above the agency's estimates, but those vessels offered additional capabilities, including larger cranes, additional deck equipment, flight decks and extra accommodations that the agency found justified the higher prices.
GAO concluded that differences in the evaluations resulted from differences in the vessels proposed and denied the protest.
The decision was issued June 8, 2026.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424396%2Cb-424396.2
Publicly Released on: Sept. 2, 2026. Published: June 8, 2026
Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., DLA Piper LLP (US); and Aida N. Al-Akhdar, Esq., Arent Fox Schiff LLP, for the protester.
Julia A. LoBosco, Esq., Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and Victoria Platner, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.
Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Jazz Solutions Protest of Education Department Task Order to Clear Vantage Point
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by Jazz Solutions Inc., Ashburn, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Department of Education's award of a task order to Clear Vantage Point Solutions II LLC, Chantilly, Virginia, for a cloud-based identity and access management solution for Federal Student Aid customers.
The procurement sought services to build, implement, operate and maintain a modern cloud-based system that would merge two existing Federal Student Aid identity and access management systems within 18 months. The solicitation also provided for operations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by Jazz Solutions Inc., Ashburn, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Department of Education's award of a task order to Clear Vantage Point Solutions II LLC, Chantilly, Virginia, for a cloud-based identity and access management solution for Federal Student Aid customers.
The procurement sought services to build, implement, operate and maintain a modern cloud-based system that would merge two existing Federal Student Aid identity and access management systems within 18 months. The solicitation also provided for operationsand maintenance of the existing systems if the transition was delayed or abandoned.
The Education Department issued the solicitation in August 2025 as a small-business set-aside. The fixed-price task order was to include a 12-month base period and four 12-month options. Quotations were evaluated on technical approach, key personnel, past performance and price, with the technical factors and past performance carrying significant weight.
Seven vendors submitted quotations, including Jazz, Clear Vantage Point and another vendor identified in the decision as Vendor F. Clear Vantage Point received outstanding ratings for technical approach, key personnel and past performance and offered a price of $73.3 million. Vendor F received outstanding ratings for technical approach and past performance, a good rating for key personnel and the lowest price of $69.8 million. Jazz received outstanding ratings for technical approach, a good rating for key personnel and past performance, and submitted a $96.1 million price.
The contracting officer determined that Clear Vantage Point offered the best value despite its price being about $3.47 million, or 5 percent, higher than Vendor F's. The agency cited Clear Vantage Point's stronger key personnel, greater experience with the proposed technologies and greater confidence in its ability to execute the technical solution.
Jazz challenged, among other things, the agency's outstanding past performance rating for Vendor F. Jazz argued that Vendor F's past performance examples showed that it had met, rather than exceeded, contract requirements.
GAO rejected the argument, finding that the Education Department reasonably evaluated Vendor F's past performance based on customer questionnaires and other information. The agency identified multiple significant strengths and strengths involving management, quality, customer engagement and contract performance. GAO said the record supported the agency's determination that Vendor F presented a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.
GAO also noted that the adjectival rating definitions used by the agency were internal evaluation instructions and were not disclosed in the solicitation. Jazz's disagreement with how the agency applied those internal definitions did not provide a basis to sustain the protest.
Because Vendor F was ranked ahead of Jazz and had a lower price and higher past performance rating, GAO found that Jazz was not an interested party to challenge other aspects of Clear Vantage Point's evaluation or the best-value decision. If Jazz prevailed on those issues, Vendor F would still be next in line for the award.
GAO therefore denied Jazz's protest in a decision dated July 29, 2026.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424440%2Cb-424440.2
Publicly Released on: Sept. 3, 2026. Published: July 29, 2026
Joshua B. Duvall, Esq., Duvy Law, LLC; and Marcos Gonzalez, Esq., GovSpring Legal PLLC, for the protester.
Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., of Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for Clear Vantage Point Solutions II, LLC, the intervenor.
Timothy J. Rushenberg, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies C.H. Guernsey & Co. Protest Over DLA Utilities Contract Award to ScottMadden Inc.
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by C.H. Guernsey and Co., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, challenging the Defense Logistics Agency's award of a utilities privatization support services task order to ScottMadden Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
The task order, issued under a request for quotations, covers utilities privatization support services at three military installations in Alaska. The services include administration of existing utility services contracts, analysis of utility contracts and tariffs, rate case analyses, regulatory commission interaction
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by C.H. Guernsey and Co., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, challenging the Defense Logistics Agency's award of a utilities privatization support services task order to ScottMadden Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
The task order, issued under a request for quotations, covers utilities privatization support services at three military installations in Alaska. The services include administration of existing utility services contracts, analysis of utility contracts and tariffs, rate case analyses, regulatory commission interactionand rate case litigation support.
The solicitation called for a fixed-price task order with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The agency planned to select the quotation offering the best value based on technical capability, past performance and price, with technical capability and past performance more important than price.
DLA received seven quotations, including those from Guernsey and ScottMadden. Both companies received acceptable ratings under the technical factor. Guernsey received a substantial-confidence rating for past performance, while ScottMadden received a satisfactory-confidence rating.
Guernsey's price was $12.29 million, compared with ScottMadden's $10.31 million. Although the source selection authority recognized Guernsey's stronger past performance rating and its history as the incumbent contractor, the official concluded that Guernsey's higher rating did not justify its approximately $1.98 million price premium.
DLA awarded the task order to ScottMadden on April 27, 2026. Guernsey subsequently challenged the evaluation of ScottMadden's technical approach, labor mix and past performance, as well as the agency's best-value decision.
Guernsey argued that ScottMadden's proposed staffing approach relied too heavily on lower-level personnel and that the company's labor mix was inconsistent with the solicitation's requirements. GAO rejected the argument, finding that the solicitation gave vendors broad discretion to determine their labor categories and proposed hours. The solicitation did not require vendors to follow the government's estimated labor hours or prohibit the use of lower-level labor categories.
GAO also found that DLA reasonably evaluated ScottMadden's proposed staffing and technical approach. The agency identified numerous strengths in the quotation, including the qualifications and experience of proposed personnel and the company's plan for applying resources to the performance requirements. Although the agency identified some weaknesses, it concluded that the strengths outweighed them.
Guernsey also challenged ScottMadden's satisfactory-confidence past performance rating, arguing that the company lacked relevant experience for some portions of the requirement. ScottMadden submitted three past performance examples involving LUMA Energy, Unitil Corporation and Summit Utilities. DLA found the examples relevant overall and noted that they demonstrated experience with key, higher-effort requirements, including rate case litigation and interaction with regulatory commissions.
GAO found that DLA appropriately considered the recency, scope, magnitude, relevance and quality of ScottMadden's past performance and reasonably assigned a satisfactory-confidence rating.
The protester further argued that ScottMadden should have provided past performance information for potential subcontractors. GAO disagreed, finding that the solicitation did not require such information merely because a vendor stated it might subcontract certain specialized tasks. ScottMadden did not propose a teaming arrangement or identify subcontractors that would perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.
Finally, GAO upheld the best-value tradeoff. The decision said the source selection authority documented the relative merits of both quotations, recognized Guernsey's superior past performance and technical expertise, and reasonably concluded that those advantages did not warrant the higher price.
GAO concluded that DLA's evaluations and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and denied Guernsey's protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424484%2Cb-424484.2
Publicly Released on: Aug. 28, 2026. Published: Aug. 12, 2026
Kendra P. Norwood, Esq., Michael T. Patterson, Esq., and Ruth El, Esq., Fluet & Associates, PLLC, for the protester.
Richard Aviles, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies GSI Pacific Protest Over Navy Construction Contracts
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by GSI Pacific Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, challenging the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command decision to eliminate the company from a competition for multiple construction contracts.
The Navy issued the solicitation in December 2023 for multiple fixed-price construction contracts covering design-build and design-bid-build work. The contracts would have a five-year base period and one three-year option period.
The competition was structured in two phases, with the Navy planning to advance about 10 of the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a protest by GSI Pacific Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, challenging the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command decision to eliminate the company from a competition for multiple construction contracts.
The Navy issued the solicitation in December 2023 for multiple fixed-price construction contracts covering design-build and design-bid-build work. The contracts would have a five-year base period and one three-year option period.
The competition was structured in two phases, with the Navy planning to advance about 10 of themost highly qualified companies from the first phase to the second. First-phase proposals were evaluated on technical approach, experience, past performance and safety.
GSI challenged its elimination, arguing that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its experience proposal. The company also alleged that the Navy treated competitors differently when evaluating project experience.
GAO said the solicitation required companies to submit at least three and no more than five relevant construction projects and three to five relevant design projects. The projects generally had to fall within eight years before the solicitation was issued.
For design projects involving ongoing construction, the solicitation allowed projects where the design was completed within the required eight-year period and construction was still ongoing.
GSI submitted five design projects. For two, it listed "TBD," or to be determined, for construction start and completion dates. For a third, it listed the dates as "NA," or not applicable. GSI did not otherwise explain the status of construction for those projects.
The Navy determined that it could not establish whether construction had started, was completed or was ongoing for the three projects. As a result, the agency found the projects did not meet the solicitation's relevance requirements. Without at least three relevant design projects, GSI received an unacceptable rating for experience and was not invited to the second phase.
GAO found the Navy's evaluation reasonable, noting that the agency needed enough information to determine whether the projects qualified as ongoing construction. GAO also rejected GSI's claim of unequal treatment.
Other companies that used "TBD" or "NA" in some project fields had provided enough information on their other projects to demonstrate at least three relevant design projects. Thus, GAO found that differences in the companies' proposals supported the different evaluation results.
The protest was denied in a decision dated Aug. 27, 2026.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424511.3%2Cb-424511.4
Publicly Released on: Sept. 1, 2026. Published: Aug. 27, 2026
Peter B. Ford, Esq., Tracey Pruiett, Esq., Daniel J. Figuenick III, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Kristin E. Cralle, Esq., and Abigail Finan, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester.
Lauren Kalaukoa, Esq., and Christine Tamashiro, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Sustains LJR Solutions Protest Over NIH Small-Business Set-Aside Decision
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The U.S. Government Accountability Office has sustained a protest by LJR Solutions, a small business based in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health's decision not to reserve its professional, scientific and technical services procurement exclusively or partially for small businesses.
In a decision dated Aug. 14, 2026, GAO General Counsel found that the NIH had not reasonably or adequately documented its determination that the procurement should proceed on a full-and-open basis.
The NIH is
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The U.S. Government Accountability Office has sustained a protest by LJR Solutions, a small business based in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health's decision not to reserve its professional, scientific and technical services procurement exclusively or partially for small businesses.
In a decision dated Aug. 14, 2026, GAO General Counsel found that the NIH had not reasonably or adequately documented its determination that the procurement should proceed on a full-and-open basis.
The NIH isseeking multiple five-year contracts to support its broad research portfolio, including scientific expertise, vaccine research and development, laboratory research and bioinformatics. The solicitation anticipates at least eight indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts.
Federal acquisition rules generally require agencies to set aside procurements above the simplified acquisition threshold for small businesses when there is a reasonable expectation of receiving competitive offers from at least two responsible small businesses at fair market prices, with appropriate quality and delivery. The decision described this requirement as the "rule of two."
GAO found that NIH's earlier market research, conducted in 2024, had identified three small businesses as capable of performing the requirement. NIH nevertheless decided to compete the procurement on a full-and-open basis with a small-business reserve.
When LJR later challenged the approach, NIH relied on an April 2026 memorandum that concluded there was no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two capable small businesses. But GAO said the memorandum failed to explain specifically why the three firms previously deemed capable were no longer considered capable.
The decision also faulted NIH for relying on concerns about subcontracting. The solicitation expressly permitted subcontractors, including for major or critical aspects of the work, and the agency itself concluded that no company--large or small--could independently perform the entire volume and scope of the requirement. The GAO said NIH therefore had not adequately explained why small businesses should be held to a different standard.
The agency also failed to document whether a partial small-business set-aside was feasible, even though it acknowledged that some small businesses could perform portions of the requirement.
GAO recommended that NIH reconsider whether the procurement should be fully or partially set aside for small businesses and conduct new market research if appropriate. It also recommended that the agency reimburse LJR Solutions for the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424487
Publicly Released on: Aug. 24, 2026. Published: Aug. 14, 2026
Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., John L. Hotlz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., and Jordan I. Akins, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for the protester.
Jon J. Gottschalk, Esq., and David Lank, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, 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 Rejects Ideal Innovations Protest Over Army Biometrics Task Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Ideal Innovations Inc., Arlington, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army Materiel Command's decision to issue a technical and engineering services task order to Allegheny Science and Technology Corp., Bridgeport, West Virginia.
Ideal Innovations alleged that the award was tainted by personal and organizational conflicts of interest and argued that the Army unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal. In a July 2, 2026, decision, GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez rejected the protest, finding that the Army
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Ideal Innovations Inc., Arlington, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army Materiel Command's decision to issue a technical and engineering services task order to Allegheny Science and Technology Corp., Bridgeport, West Virginia.
Ideal Innovations alleged that the award was tainted by personal and organizational conflicts of interest and argued that the Army unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal. In a July 2, 2026, decision, GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez rejected the protest, finding that the Armymeaningfully investigated the alleged conflicts and reasonably evaluated the competing proposals.
The task order supports the Army's Biometrics Operations Division and covers technical and engineering operations services. The procurement was conducted as a small-business set-aside through the General Services Administration's electronic buying system. The contract includes a six-month base period and four one-year options.
Following an earlier protest by Ideal Innovations, the Army agreed to investigate the alleged conflicts, reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision. The subsequent evaluation rated Allegheny Science's technical proposal outstanding, compared with an acceptable rating for Ideal Innovations. Allegheny Science offered a price and cost of about $18.48 million, while Ideal Innovations proposed about $18.99 million.
A central issue involved a contracting officer's representative for the incumbent task order, identified in the decision as Mr. X, whose son, Mr. Y, worked for a proposed subcontractor to Allegheny Science. Ideal Innovations argued that the family relationship created conflicts because Mr. X had access to information concerning the incumbent contract and had participated in developing elements of the new procurement.
The Army investigated the allegations and found no evidence that Mr. X provided nonpublic information to his son or influenced the competition. Mr. X said he did not know his son's employer was participating as a subcontractor until after the selection decision. He then recused himself from further involvement. GAO concluded that the investigation was reasonable and that a family relationship alone was insufficient to establish a conflict of interest.
Ideal Innovations also alleged that the subcontractor had gained an unfair advantage through its work on another Army contract involving business operations and access control. GAO found that the two contracts had substantially different responsibilities and that there was no evidence the subcontractor obtained proprietary or source-selection information that could provide a competitive advantage.
The protester further argued that the Army should have credited its proposal with additional significant strengths, including its approach to managing more than 13,000 originating agency identifiers used in biometric operations. GAO found that the proposal generally met the solicitation's requirements but did not demonstrate that its approach appreciably exceeded those requirements.
GAO also rejected Ideal Innovations' challenge to the adequacy of the Army's evaluation documentation, finding that the contemporaneous record sufficiently supported the agency's conclusions and that subsequent explanations were consistent with the evaluation.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423954.2
Publicly Released on: Aug. 20, 2026. Published: July 2, 2026.
John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester.
Maria L. Panichelli, Esq., Philip Lee, Esq., and Andrew Hamilton, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, the intervenor.
Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., Michelle Litteken, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Rejects Davos Francois Protest Over State Department Haiti Police Advisor Job
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Davos Francois, Miramar, Florida, challenging the U.S. State Department's solicitation for a senior police advisor in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Francois argued that the State Department improperly broadened the position's experience requirements to allow military backgrounds and removed a preference for Haitian Creole proficiency. He also alleged that agency officials acted in bad faith to make a particular candidate competitive for the position.
In a decision dated Aug. 17, 2026, GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Davos Francois, Miramar, Florida, challenging the U.S. State Department's solicitation for a senior police advisor in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Francois argued that the State Department improperly broadened the position's experience requirements to allow military backgrounds and removed a preference for Haitian Creole proficiency. He also alleged that agency officials acted in bad faith to make a particular candidate competitive for the position.
In a decision dated Aug. 17, 2026, GAO General Counsel Edda EmmanuelliPerez rejected all of the allegations.
The State Department issued the disputed solicitation in June for a personal services contractor to work at the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince. The position, with a salary range of $126,384 to $164,301, calls for advising Haitian authorities on policing, security, law enforcement reform, citizen safety and counternarcotics programs.
The solicitation requires a bachelor's degree and at least 15 years of experience, including five years of supervisory responsibility. Candidates can qualify through experience in military, policing, security or counternarcotics fields, rather than exclusively through civilian law enforcement.
GAO said Francois's objection effectively sought to make the qualifications more restrictive, which would conflict with the agency's responsibility to promote full and open competition. The office also found that the State Department reasonably determined that military experience could be useful in Haiti because of the country's security environment and the increasing military component of efforts involving the Haitian National Police.
GAO likewise upheld the decision to remove Haitian Creole proficiency from the evaluation criteria. The State Department said senior officials with whom the advisor would primarily work speak English and that translators would be available when necessary. The agency also said removing the language preference would broaden the recruiting pool.
Francois further alleged that the procurement had been engineered to favor the original awardee. He cited an alleged recording, statements made to a congressional office and a State Department employee's promotion of the solicitation on LinkedIn.
GAO found the evidence insufficient to establish bad faith. The alleged recording itself was not submitted, and the transcript was not supported by a declaration from the unidentified speaker. GAO also noted that the State Department's Haiti director provided a sworn statement denying that the position had been created for any particular individual. Publicizing the solicitation on social media, GAO said, was more consistent with an effort to increase competition than to restrict it.
The office also rejected Francois's challenge to the scope of the State Department's corrective action following his earlier protest. GAO concluded that the agency reasonably revised the solicitation after determining that the previous version did not accurately reflect its needs.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424592
Publicly Released on: Aug. 18, 2026. Published: Aug. 17, 2026
Davos Francois, for the protester.
Tudo Pham, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Wepa Commercial Cleaning Protest of Salmon Group's Veterans Affairs Custodial Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Wepa Commercial Cleaning LLC, Chula Vista, California, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' decision to award a custodial services contract to Salmon Group Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business based in Washington, D.C.
The decision, issued Aug. 17, involved a Veterans Affairs solicitation for custodial services at the Seattle VA Medical Center. Wepa challenged the agency's best-value tradeoff and argued that the corrective action taken after an earlier protest was not meaningful.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Wepa Commercial Cleaning LLC, Chula Vista, California, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' decision to award a custodial services contract to Salmon Group Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business based in Washington, D.C.
The decision, issued Aug. 17, involved a Veterans Affairs solicitation for custodial services at the Seattle VA Medical Center. Wepa challenged the agency's best-value tradeoff and argued that the corrective action taken after an earlier protest was not meaningful.
Thesolicitation, issued June 10, 2025, was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and sought custodial services including cleaning restrooms, dining areas, the canteen, retail spaces, elevators, hallways, examination and waiting rooms, and administrative areas. The contract included a one-year base period and four one-year option periods.
Proposals were evaluated on technical approach, past performance and price. Technical approach and past performance were equally weighted and, together, were significantly more important than price. The agency received 53 proposals by the July 28, 2025, deadline.
The Veterans Affairs initially selected Salmon Group for the contract in September 2025. Wepa subsequently filed a protest with the General Accountability Office, but the agency took corrective action by agreeing to reevaluate the two companies' technical proposals and determine whether the award should change.
Following the reevaluation, Salmon Group again received the contract. Wepa's technical approach was rated acceptable, while Salmon Group's was rated outstanding. Wepa received a relevant, substantial-confidence past performance rating compared with Salmon Group's relevant, satisfactory-confidence rating. Wepa also submitted the lower price, at $9.85 million compared with Salmon Group's $10.08 million.
Despite Wepa's advantages in price and past performance, the agency concluded that Salmon Group offered the best value. The Veterans Affairs evaluation found that Salmon Group demonstrated an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and presented a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.
The agency identified four weaknesses in Wepa's technical proposal, citing tasks that were either omitted or addressed with limited detail. The agency determined that Salmon Group's technical superiority outweighed Wepa's slight past performance advantage and justified the roughly 2 percent price premium.
Wepa argued that the best-value decision was inadequately documented because the agency selected the higher-priced proposal despite Wepa's stronger past performance rating and lower price. The General Accountability Office disagreed, finding that the agency had adequately considered the relative merits and costs of the proposals.
The decision noted that when a solicitation permits a best-value tradeoff, an agency may select a higher-priced, technically superior proposal. The agency must reasonably document its business judgments and tradeoffs, but it is not required to provide extensive documentation of every consideration.
The General Accountability Office also rejected Wepa's challenge to the corrective action. Wepa argued that the corrective action was insufficient because the reevaluation ultimately produced the same award result, with Salmon Group retaining the contract while its price and past performance rating remained unchanged.
The General Accountability Office said an agency generally is not required to reconcile a later evaluation with an earlier one. The key question is whether the final evaluation and award decision are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. The office found that the Veterans Affairs had done what it promised by reevaluating the technical proposals and making a new award decision.
The General Accountability Office concluded that Wepa had not demonstrated that the reevaluation, tradeoff decision or corrective action was unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424129.2
Publicly Released on: Aug. 18, 2026. Published: Aug 17, 2026
Francisco Javier Rivera, for the protester.
Jared M. Levin, 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 Potomac Valor Healthcare Protest Over Veterans Affairs Clinic Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Potomac Valor Healthcare-2 LLC, a joint venture involving Potomac Healthcare Solutions LLC and Valor Healthcare Inc., Woodbridge, Virginia, after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determined that the company was no longer eligible for a contract set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
The protest concerned a Veterans Affairs contract for primary care and mental health services at outpatient clinics. Potomac Valor challenged the agency's decision to eliminate
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Potomac Valor Healthcare-2 LLC, a joint venture involving Potomac Healthcare Solutions LLC and Valor Healthcare Inc., Woodbridge, Virginia, after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determined that the company was no longer eligible for a contract set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
The protest concerned a Veterans Affairs contract for primary care and mental health services at outpatient clinics. Potomac Valor challenged the agency's decision to eliminateits proposal from consideration and also raised objections to the evaluation and award to Primary Care Solutions LLC, Dallas, Texas.
The solicitation was issued in October 2023 and was initially unrestricted. The Veterans Affairs later amended it to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses under the agency's Veterans First contracting program. The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 12-month base period and four 12-month ordering periods.
Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical capabilities, geographic location and accessibility, past performance and price. The non-price factors collectively were significantly more important than price.
Potomac Valor and Primary Care Solutions submitted proposals by the December 2023 deadline. At that time, Potomac Valor was a verified service-disabled veteran-owned small business listed in the Small Business Administration's certification database. The Veterans Affairs initially awarded the contract to Primary Care Solutions in October 2024.
Potomac Valor protested that award, prompting the Veterans Affairs to take corrective action and reevaluate the proposals. Before making a new award decision, however, the contracting officer learned of corporate transactions involving the joint venture's partners. The agency subsequently confirmed that Valor Healthcare, described in the decision as a large business, had acquired 100 percent of Potomac Healthcare Solutions on Jan. 5, 2026. Potomac Valor acknowledged that, as a result, neither Potomac nor the joint venture qualified as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business for future set-aside awards.
In May, the Veterans Affairs notified Potomac Valor that it was ineligible for the award because the joint venture no longer met the applicable eligibility requirements at the time of award. The agency then reaffirmed its award to Primary Care Solutions.
Potomac Valor argued that the joint venture's eligibility should have been determined when it submitted its proposal, rather than when the contract was awarded. The company pointed to Small Business Administration regulations stating that a joint venture must certify its status at the time of its initial offer.
The GAO rejected that interpretation. It found that the Veterans Affairs regulations governing its Veterans First program unambiguously required a joint venture to be a verified service-disabled veteran-owned small business both when it submitted its proposal and when the award was made. The decision said the relevant Veterans Affairs regulations must be read together and that the joint venture provision directs offerors back to requirements that expressly include eligibility at the time of award.
The GAO also noted that the solicitation itself specifically instructed potential contractors to be registered and certified as service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses at both the time of proposal submission and award.
Although Potomac Valor had been certified when it submitted its proposal in December 2023, Valor Healthcare's acquisition of Potomac in January 2026 changed the joint venture's status. The GAO concluded that the Veterans Affairs therefore properly eliminated Potomac Valor from consideration for the contract.
The decision acknowledged that the Small Business Administration disagreed with the Veterans Affairs' interpretation, asserting that its regulations establish when a joint venture is eligible under the federal service-disabled veteran-owned small business program. However, The GAO said the procurement was conducted under the Veterans First authority, which gives the Veterans Affairs separate regulatory authority. The office concluded that the Veterans Affairs regulations could impose requirements that were more stringent or different from the Small Business Administration's general rules.
Because Potomac Valor was no longer eligible for the set-aside, The GAO also dismissed the company's remaining challenges to the evaluation of Primary Care Solutions' proposal and the agency's best-value decision. The office found that Potomac Valor was not an "interested party" because it could not receive the contract under the solicitation.
The GAO concluded that the Veterans Affairs reasonably eliminated Potomac Valor from the competition and that the company lacked the standing to pursue its remaining allegations. The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423195.2%2Cb-423195.3
Publicly Released on: Aug. 18, 2026. Published: Aug. 12, 2026.
Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., and Ashton P. Jones-Doherty, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester.
David A. Rose, Esq., Rose Consulting Law Firm, for Primary Care Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs; and Edmund M. Bender, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
