Targeted News Service

More Recent Headlines

GAO Bid Protests

Here's a look at news stories involving federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel

Featured Stories

GAO Denies Pond Security's Protest Over State Department Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from Pond Security Service GmbH, a German company, over a contract awarded by the U.S. State Department. The contract for local guard services in Germany was instead granted to Putz Security AG. Pond, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that the final award decision was flawed.

The GAO's decision, which was issued on July 16, 2025, concluded that the State Department's evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and that any potential errors ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from Pond Security Service GmbH, a German company, over a contract awarded by the U.S. State Department. The contract for local guard services in Germany was instead granted to Putz Security AG. Pond, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that the final award decision was flawed. The GAO's decision, which was issued on July 16, 2025, concluded that the State Department's evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and that any potential errorsdid not unfairly harm Pond's chances.

In its review, the GAO examined several of Pond's claims. Pond first argued that its own technical proposal was improperly evaluated. The agency had raised concerns that Pond's proposal included excessive staffing and equipment beyond what the contract required, which could lead to inflated costs. Pond claimed this was an unstated evaluation criterion, but the GAO disagreed. It found that the agency's consideration of cost-related risks was a reasonable and intrinsic part of the evaluation process, as the solicitation called for a combined technical and risk rating.

Pond also challenged the evaluation of Putz Security's proposal. The protester claimed that the agency waived a mandatory forty-hour firearms training requirement for Putz. This training was to be waived only if the new contractor used the same weapon model, the CZ-75 BD (Police), as the one currently in use. Putz proposed a similar weapon, the CZ-75 BD, and Pond argued this was not an exact match. However, the GAO found the agency's determination to be reasonable. The agency had received a letter from the weapon's manufacturer confirming that the two models were "completely identical in terms of operation and use" with only minor cosmetic differences, justifying the training waiver.

Finally, the GAO concluded that the agency's best-value tradeoff decision was well-reasoned. While Pond had stronger ratings in experience and past performance, Putz offered a superior transition plan and a significantly lower price. The GAO found that the agency's decision to award the contract to the technically sound, lower-priced proposal was a reasonable exercise of its discretion.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423444%2Cb-423444.2

Publicly Released on: Sept. 2, 2025 Published: July 16, 2025

Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq., Law Office of P. Reinsdorf, and Edward V. Arnold, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester.

John W. Cox, Esq., and Tudo N. Pham, Esq., Department of State, 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 Upholds Military Clothing Contract Decision

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- A federal bid protest brought by three veteran-owned businesses has been denied by the Government Accountability Office. The companies, ConnectUP of Baltic, Connecticut; Labasa LLC of Denville, New Jersey; and SOFX Inc. of Charleston, South Carolina, challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's rejection of their proposals for a contract to supply cold weather trousers.

The proposals were rejected because the required product models were not received by the specified deadline. The companies argued that the late delivery was caused by government interference, stating that the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- A federal bid protest brought by three veteran-owned businesses has been denied by the Government Accountability Office. The companies, ConnectUP of Baltic, Connecticut; Labasa LLC of Denville, New Jersey; and SOFX Inc. of Charleston, South Carolina, challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's rejection of their proposals for a contract to supply cold weather trousers. The proposals were rejected because the required product models were not received by the specified deadline. The companies argued that the late delivery was caused by government interference, stating that thesolicitation instructions did not explain the security requirements needed for their commercial carrier to access the delivery location in Philadelphia. They also contended that the agency unreasonably refused to help the carrier, UPS, when it was denied entry.

The GAO's decision stated that it is an offeror's sole responsibility to ensure proposals are delivered on time. The office found the solicitation instructions were sufficient, providing the address and deadline for delivery. The GAO also noted that delays in accessing government facilities should be expected and that the protesters did not leave enough time to account for unforeseen issues like adverse weather and security credentialing problems with the delivery driver.

The GAO concluded that the protesters failed to demonstrate that the agency's actions were the primary cause of the late delivery. The agency was not obligated to provide special assistance to the companies, as doing so would have been unfair to other offerors who submitted their proposals on time. As a result, the protests were denied.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423557%2Cb-423557.2%2Cb-423557.3

Publicly Released on: Aug. 28, 2025 Published: Aug. 12, 2025

Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protesters.

Una Legin, Esq., and Morgan E. Dowd, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

GAO Rejects Protest Over Navy Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request from Vox Optima LLC, of Tijeras, New Mexico, to reconsider its protest against a U.S. Navy contract award. The company had challenged the U.S. Navy's decision to award a contract for corporate communications services to Red Carrot Inc. of Miami, Florida.

Vox Optima, the incumbent contractor for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, originally protested the award, claiming the Navy improperly evaluated Red Carrot's proposal and that the winning firm had improperly recruited ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request from Vox Optima LLC, of Tijeras, New Mexico, to reconsider its protest against a U.S. Navy contract award. The company had challenged the U.S. Navy's decision to award a contract for corporate communications services to Red Carrot Inc. of Miami, Florida. Vox Optima, the incumbent contractor for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, originally protested the award, claiming the Navy improperly evaluated Red Carrot's proposal and that the winning firm had improperly recruitedits employees.

The GAO, however, dismissed the initial protest on July 15, 2025. It found that Vox Optima was not an "interested party" because a third company, which had a technically acceptable and lower-priced offer, would have been next in line for the contract even if Vox Optima's protest had been successful. The contract was to be awarded on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.

In its request for reconsideration, filed on September 3, 2025, Vox Optima argued that the Navy had withheld information about the third company and failed to follow proper protest procedures. Vox Optima claimed these omissions impacted the GAO's decision to dismiss its initial protest. However, the GAO's ruling reiterated that its bid protest regulations require new factual or legal grounds to reconsider a decision. The GAO found that the Navy was not required to disclose details about the third company to Vox Optima during a post-award explanation, as the rules for this type of contract do not require a formal debriefing. Because Vox Optima did not challenge the third company's offer after learning about its existence, its protest was deemed too remote to have a direct economic interest in the outcome.

With no new information or legal errors presented, the GAO denied the request for reconsideration.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423661.3

Publicly Released on: Sept. 4, 2025 Published: Sept. 3, 2025

Jonathan Bozek for the requester.

Howard B. Rein, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

GAO Rejects Protest Over Army Intelligence Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from United Defense LLC, of Hampton, Virginia, regarding the terms of an U.S. Army contract for intelligence support services. The company argued that the Army should have amended its solicitation after a policy was announced that would merge the Training and Doctrine Command, which is currently at Fort Eustis, Virginia, with the Army Futures Command in Austin, Texas.

United Defense contended that the consolidation constituted a change in the Army's requirements, specifically affecting the location of the work. The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from United Defense LLC, of Hampton, Virginia, regarding the terms of an U.S. Army contract for intelligence support services. The company argued that the Army should have amended its solicitation after a policy was announced that would merge the Training and Doctrine Command, which is currently at Fort Eustis, Virginia, with the Army Futures Command in Austin, Texas. United Defense contended that the consolidation constituted a change in the Army's requirements, specifically affecting the location of the work. Thecompany's bid, like those of other offerors, was based on labor and wage rates for the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. A shift to Texas would require a fundamental change in staffing and pricing.

The Army acknowledged its intent to consolidate the two commands but maintained that no specific timeline or implementation plan had been established. Army officials, including the contracting officer and the deputy chief of staff for intelligence for TRADOC, stated that they had received no concrete guidance that would necessitate a change to the current solicitation's terms.

The GAO, in a decision issued on August 13, sided with the Army. The office found that the information provided by the Army showed the consolidation was still in the early planning stages and that the agency's requirements had not, in fact, changed. The GAO concluded that since the Army's current needs were still reflected in the existing solicitation, there was no legal requirement to issue an amendment.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423577

Publicly Released on: Aug. 29, 2025 Published: Aug. 13, 2025

Olivia C. Bellini, Esq., Christopher M. O'Brien, Esq., Shomari B. Wade, Esq, and Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester.

Carter R. Cassidy, Esq., Bruce A. Nessler, Esq., and Robert B. Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

GAO Dismisses and Denies Protest Against Defense Security Agency Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has partially dismissed and partially denied a bid protest from Protection Strategies Etc. International LLC, a small business from Barrington, New Hampshire. The company challenged the terms of a solicitation from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency for background investigation support services.

PSEI initially argued that the DCSA failed to set aside the contract for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and improperly removed an evaluation preference for these firms. The GAO dismissed this claim, stating that ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has partially dismissed and partially denied a bid protest from Protection Strategies Etc. International LLC, a small business from Barrington, New Hampshire. The company challenged the terms of a solicitation from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency for background investigation support services. PSEI initially argued that the DCSA failed to set aside the contract for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and improperly removed an evaluation preference for these firms. The GAO dismissed this claim, stating thatfederal procurement law does not require agencies to set aside procurements for specific small business subcategories even if a reasonable expectation of offers exists. The agency's decision to change the solicitation to a general small business set-aside was found to be legally sound.

The protest also challenged the contract's fixed-price structure and its phase-in requirements as ambiguous and overly risky for bidders. The GAO denied these arguments. It found that the DCSA provided sufficient historical workload data for bidders to intelligently calculate their fixed prices. Additionally, the GAO determined that the phase-in requirements were clear enough for companies to understand and bid on.

A separate issue raised by PSEI regarding contradictory terms about whether discussions would be held was dismissed as academic because the DCSA has already committed to amending the solicitation to clarify the matter. The decision was issued on August 25.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423539

Publicly Released on: Aug. 28, 2025 Published: Aug. 25, 2025

Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Daniel J. Figuenick III, Esq., and Kristine E. Cralle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester.

Matthew T. Donohue, Esq., Katie L. Oyler, Esq., Tiffany J. Williams, Esq., and Cathryn F. Beaman, Esq., Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, 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 Denies Protest Over Defense Intelligence Agency Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from IBS Government Services Inc. of Potomac, Maryland, challenging a contract awarded by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The task order for financial audit support services was issued to RMA Associates LLC, a small business in Arlington, Virginia.

IBS primarily argued that the DIA unreasonably evaluated its proposal, particularly its technical and management approach. The company contended that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by faulting IBS for not including a plan for employee retention. IBS ... Show Full Article

GAO Denies Protest on Navy IT Contract

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from C4CJV LLC, a small business based in Burke, Virginia, regarding a contract awarded by the U.S. Navy. The contract for information technology services was granted to PCG-SMX JV LLC, a small business in Lexington Park, Maryland.

C4CJV argued that the Navy's evaluation of its proposal was flawed, leading to an improper decision. The company's protest specifically challenged the agency's assessment of its cost and price proposal.

The Navy's evaluation found that C4CJV's proposal was "unacceptable" because a key ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from C4CJV LLC, a small business based in Burke, Virginia, regarding a contract awarded by the U.S. Navy. The contract for information technology services was granted to PCG-SMX JV LLC, a small business in Lexington Park, Maryland. C4CJV argued that the Navy's evaluation of its proposal was flawed, leading to an improper decision. The company's protest specifically challenged the agency's assessment of its cost and price proposal. The Navy's evaluation found that C4CJV's proposal was "unacceptable" because a keysubcontractor failed to submit a required cost workbook. The solicitation stated that failure to comply with submission requirements could result in a proposal being deemed deficient and ineligible for an award.

The GAO's decision, issued on July 31, affirmed the Navy's actions. The GAO found that the requirement to submit the cost workbook was a "material" term of the contract, meaning it was a crucial component. The failure to include this workbook was a significant omission that justified the rejection of the proposal. The GAO concluded that the agency acted reasonably and consistently with the terms of the solicitation.

Because the GAO upheld the Navy's decision on the cost and price deficiency, it did not review C4CJV's other challenges to the technical and past performance aspects of the evaluation. The GAO stated that even if those other arguments were successful, the company's proposal would still be ineligible for the contract due to the initial deficiency.

* * # * *

Primary source of information - GAO:

Publicly Released on: Aug. 28, 2025 Published: July 31, 2025

Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester.

Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for PCG-SMX JV, LLC, the intervenor.

Hillary A. H. Spadaccini, Esq., Jonathan M. Warren, Esq., and Michael T. Patterson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

Air Force Cyber Contract to DecisionPoint Upheld by GAO Despite Protest

By Marlyn T. Vitin

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from Centuria Corp., Reston, Virginia, regarding a contract awarded by the U.S. Air Force. The protest concerned a task order for defensive cyber support services issued to DecisionPoint Corp., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business from Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Centuria argued that the Air Force improperly held discussions with the awardee without giving other bidders an opportunity to submit a revised proposal. The protest cited Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.307(b), which requires this ... Show Full Article

Existing Customer Login