Featured Stories
GAO Denies Mustang Survival Protest Over Navy Submarine Escape Suit Contract Award to RFD Beaufort
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Mustang Survival Manufacturing Inc., LaFayette, California, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract for submarine escape suits to RFD Beaufort Inc., Sharon Center, Ohio.
The procurement, conducted by the U.S. Naval Supply Systems Command, sought 998 submarine escape and surface survival personnel equipment suits, commonly known as SESSPE suits. The life-saving equipment is designed to help submariners escape from a submerged submarine during an emergency.
The Navy used a lowest-priced, technically
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Mustang Survival Manufacturing Inc., LaFayette, California, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract for submarine escape suits to RFD Beaufort Inc., Sharon Center, Ohio.
The procurement, conducted by the U.S. Naval Supply Systems Command, sought 998 submarine escape and surface survival personnel equipment suits, commonly known as SESSPE suits. The life-saving equipment is designed to help submariners escape from a submerged submarine during an emergency.
The Navy used a lowest-priced, technicallyacceptable evaluation process and received proposals from the two prequalified suppliers of the specialized suits, Mustang and RFD Beaufort. Both companies were found technically acceptable, but RFD Beaufort submitted the lower-priced offer.
RFD Beaufort proposed a unit price of $3,706 per suit, compared with Mustang's $3,875. The awardee's total proposed price, including options, was about $7.52 million, while Mustang's proposal totaled about $7.84 million.
Mustang argued that the Navy failed to adequately evaluate whether RFD Beaufort's significantly lower pricing was realistic and posed performance risks. The company also contended that the agency improperly relied on supplier risk information from the Department of Defense's Supplier Performance Risk System and failed to perform a sufficient substitute analysis after determining that some historical pricing data in the system was unreliable.
GAO rejected those claims, finding that the Navy's evaluation complied with procurement regulations and the terms of the solicitation. The watchdog noted that the solicitation did not provide for a price realism review and that agencies generally are not permitted to conduct such analyses in fixed-price procurements unless specifically authorized.
The decision also found that the Navy reasonably considered available pricing information after identifying anomalies in the risk system's historical data. Contracting officials compared the competing offers and reviewed prior contract prices before concluding that RFD Beaufort's proposal was fair, reasonable and did not present an unacceptable risk.
GAO further dismissed Mustang's argument that the Navy should have made multiple awards, ruling that the solicitation merely reserved the agency's discretion to do so and did not require it.
The protest was denied, leaving RFD Beaufort's contract award in place.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424336
Publicly Released on: June 5, 2026 Published: June 4, 2026
Andrew Branagh for the protester.
Thomas E. Daley, Esq., and Frederick W. La Violette, Esq., DLA Piper LLP US, for RFD Beaufort, Inc., the intervenor.
Susan Whitley-Newburg, 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.
GAO Denies Economic Systems Protest Over Federal Human Resources Technology Competition
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Economic Systems Inc., Vienna, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a competition run by the Office of Personnel Management for a government-wide human resources technology modernization effort.
The procurement seeks a centralized, cloud-based human capital management platform intended to serve as the federal government's authoritative personnel system for roughly 2 million civilian employees. The solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Economic Systems Inc., Vienna, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a competition run by the Office of Personnel Management for a government-wide human resources technology modernization effort.
The procurement seeks a centralized, cloud-based human capital management platform intended to serve as the federal government's authoritative personnel system for roughly 2 million civilian employees. The solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract witha 10-year ordering period.
Economic Systems argued that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably assessed weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in its proposal. The company also challenged its exclusion from the competitive range, contending that it would have remained in contention had the proposal been evaluated properly.
GAO rejected those arguments, concluding that the Office of Personnel Management's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.
According to the decision, Economic Systems received an overall rating of "limited confidence" during the first phase of evaluations and elected to proceed to the second phase. In the subsequent review, the firm's proposal was rated "unacceptable" under the implementation approach, system testing and second virtual live demonstration factors.
Evaluators identified multiple weaknesses and deficiencies, including concerns that the company's proposed platform would function as a front-end system rather than the required authoritative system of record for federal employee data. The agency also found significant usability, functionality and performance shortcomings during system testing, including excessive manual data entry requirements, missing capabilities and system errors that prevented completion of key evaluation tasks.
GAO found that those concerns were reasonably related to the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and that the agency did not rely on hidden requirements. The watchdog also dismissed several protest allegations that it found were either insufficiently supported or raised too late in the protest process.
Because the proposal was deemed technically unacceptable and would require major revisions to become acceptable, GAO concluded that the agency reasonably excluded Economic Systems from the competitive range. The decision noted that agencies are not required to keep proposals in contention when they are not among the most highly rated or have no realistic prospect of receiving the award.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424285.2
Publicly Released on: June 2, 2026 Published: June 1, 2026
James S. DelSordo, Apollo Contract Management, for the protester.
Emily Warner, Esq., and Christopher Tiroff, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency.
Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Science Applications International Protest of U.S. Army Corps Enterprise IT Task Order Award to Accenture Federal Services
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, challenging the award of a major enterprise information technology services task order to Accenture Federal Services, Arlington, Virginia.
The procurement was conducted by the General Services Administration on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a request for task order proposals known as CASTLE-NET, a program supporting enterprise information management and information technology services across the Corps.
The solicitation sought
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, challenging the award of a major enterprise information technology services task order to Accenture Federal Services, Arlington, Virginia.
The procurement was conducted by the General Services Administration on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a request for task order proposals known as CASTLE-NET, a program supporting enterprise information management and information technology services across the Corps.
The solicitation soughta contractor to provide a broad range of services, including program management, cybersecurity, telecommunications, IT infrastructure support, engineering design, strategic planning and emergency response capabilities. The task order was structured as a hybrid cost-plus-award-fee and fixed-price contract with a one-year base period and four option years.
SAIC, the incumbent contractor on the predecessor effort, argued that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source-selection decision. The company contended that its proposal deserved higher technical ratings, that evaluators treated offerors unequally, and that the best-value tradeoff favoring Accenture was inadequately documented.
GAO rejected those claims, finding that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's requirements. The decision noted that many of SAIC's arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency's judgment rather than evidence of evaluation errors. GAO also found no basis for allegations that the agency applied a more demanding standard to SAIC than to Accenture.
The watchdog further concluded that the agency reasonably assessed performance risk and properly evaluated the relative strengths of the competing proposals. While SAIC highlighted strengths in its own submission, GAO found that those strengths did not require the agency to assign higher ratings or alter its overall evaluation conclusions.
In reviewing the best-value determination, GAO found that the source selection authority adequately documented why Accenture's proposal warranted its higher price. The agency determined that Accenture offered a superior technical approach under the most important evaluation factor and presented reduced performance risk. According to the decision, the government viewed Accenture's technical solution, transition approach and innovation capabilities as providing benefits that justified the additional cost.
GAO denied the protest, leaving the award to Accenture Federal Services in place.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424255%2Cb-424255.2
Publicly Released on: June 8, 2026 Published: May 19, 2026
Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Adrienne Jackson, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, for the protester.
Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Accenture Federal Services, the intervenor.
Steven C. Haubner, Esq., and Kelli Cochran, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 Economic Systems Protest Over Federal Human Resources Technology Competition
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Economic Systems Inc., Vienna, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a competition run by the Office of Personnel Management for a government-wide human resources technology modernization effort.
The procurement seeks a centralized, cloud-based human capital management platform intended to serve as the federal government's authoritative personnel system for roughly 2 million civilian employees. The solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Economic Systems Inc., Vienna, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a competition run by the Office of Personnel Management for a government-wide human resources technology modernization effort.
The procurement seeks a centralized, cloud-based human capital management platform intended to serve as the federal government's authoritative personnel system for roughly 2 million civilian employees. The solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract witha 10-year ordering period.
Economic Systems argued that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably assessed weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in its proposal. The company also challenged its exclusion from the competitive range, contending that it would have remained in contention had the proposal been evaluated properly.
GAO rejected those arguments, concluding that the Office of Personnel Management's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.
According to the decision, Economic Systems received an overall rating of "limited confidence" during the first phase of evaluations and elected to proceed to the second phase. In the subsequent review, the firm's proposal was rated "unacceptable" under the implementation approach, system testing and second virtual live demonstration factors.
Evaluators identified multiple weaknesses and deficiencies, including concerns that the company's proposed platform would function as a front-end system rather than the required authoritative system of record for federal employee data. The agency also found significant usability, functionality and performance shortcomings during system testing, including excessive manual data entry requirements, missing capabilities and system errors that prevented completion of key evaluation tasks.
GAO found that those concerns were reasonably related to the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and that the agency did not rely on hidden requirements. The watchdog also dismissed several protest allegations that it found were either insufficiently supported or raised too late in the protest process.
Because the proposal was deemed technically unacceptable and would require major revisions to become acceptable, GAO concluded that the agency reasonably excluded Economic Systems from the competitive range. The decision noted that agencies are not required to keep proposals in contention when they are not among the most highly rated or have no realistic prospect of receiving the award.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424285.2
Publicly Released on: June 2, 2026 Published: June 1, 2026
James S. DelSordo, Apollo Contract Management, for the protester.
Emily Warner, Esq., and Christopher Tiroff, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency.
Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Metro Accounting Protest Over Air Force Task Order Award to Vector CSP
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Metro Accounting and Professional Services LLC, Goodyear, Arizona, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Vector CSP LLC, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for support services related to air combat command operations.
The procurement sought specialized non-personal, knowledge-based services covering duties typically performed by military aviation personnel, including pilots and weapons systems officers. The task order was competed among small-business holders of the General Services Administration's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Metro Accounting and Professional Services LLC, Goodyear, Arizona, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Vector CSP LLC, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for support services related to air combat command operations.
The procurement sought specialized non-personal, knowledge-based services covering duties typically performed by military aviation personnel, including pilots and weapons systems officers. The task order was competed among small-business holders of the General Services Administration'sOASIS Plus contract vehicle and carried a one-year base period with four option years.
Metro argued that the Air Force improperly found its proposal ineligible for award after determining that the company failed to provide required pricing information. The Arizona firm also contended that Vector was not eligible for award because of issues related to its business status under North Carolina law.
According to the decision, offerors were required to submit a detailed price proposal, including a basis of estimate and a narrative explaining how pricing was developed. The solicitation specifically required vendors to identify the sources of pricing data, explain mathematical factors such as indirect rates, and justify any judgment-based pricing adjustments.
During its review, the Air Force concluded that Metro's proposal did not adequately explain key aspects of subcontractor pricing. The agency found that Metro failed to provide sufficient information regarding the source and rationale for one subcontractor's labor rates and did not adequately explain how subcontractors would use Metro's indirect rates.
After issuing an interchange notice seeking clarification, the Air Force determined that Metro's response still failed to satisfy the solicitation's requirements. The agency assigned the proposal a failing rating under the price factor, making it ineligible for further consideration.
The GAO agreed with the Air Force, finding that the solicitation clearly required offerors to explain the methodology supporting all pricing included in their proposals, including subcontractor pricing. The watchdog rejected Metro's argument that the requirement applied only to the prime contractor's pricing and found no ambiguity in the solicitation language.
Because Metro's proposal was properly deemed ineligible for award, the office also ruled that the company lacked standing to challenge Vector's eligibility. Even if Metro's allegations against Vector were correct, the decision noted, Metro would not have been next in line for award.
As a result, the GAO denied the protest and left the award to Vector CSP in place.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424317
Publicly Released on: May 26, 2026 Published: May 15, 2026
Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and Daniel E. Schoeni, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for the protester.
J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for Vector CSP, LLC, the intervenor.
Colonel Justin A. Silverman and Walker J. Gray, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
