Featured Stories
GAO Dismisses Weston Solutions Protest of Army Contract Award to Pond Constructors
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a protest by Weston Solutions Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a contract to Pond Constructors Inc., Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for preventive and corrective maintenance of petroleum facilities and systems. Weston, the incumbent contractor, argued that the Army improperly evaluated the cost of corrective maintenance and should have rejected Pond's price proposal.
The decision was issued on Sept. 9, 2026. The solicitation sought a fixed-price contract with a 3.5-year performance period,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a protest by Weston Solutions Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a contract to Pond Constructors Inc., Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for preventive and corrective maintenance of petroleum facilities and systems. Weston, the incumbent contractor, argued that the Army improperly evaluated the cost of corrective maintenance and should have rejected Pond's price proposal.
The decision was issued on Sept. 9, 2026. The solicitation sought a fixed-price contract with a 3.5-year performance period,including a base year, two option years and a six-month option. Award was to be based on the best value, with technical and management approach, past performance and small-business participation more important than price.
The Army received proposals from four firms, including Weston and Pond. After discussions, all four proposals received identical ratings for technical and management approach, past performance and small-business participation. Pond's proposed price was $48.78 million, compared with Weston's $51.86 million. The Army found all prices fair and reasonable and determined the proposals were technically equal, making price the deciding factor in the award to Pond.
Weston argued that the Army failed to evaluate the actual cost of corrective maintenance, which it characterized as an unpriced contract line item. The solicitation, however, provided a government-established $44.36 million amount for corrective maintenance and instructed offerors not to price that line item. The solicitation stated that corrective maintenance would be performed through service orders, with prices negotiated during contract performance.
GAO found that the solicitation did not provide for an evaluation of the estimated actual cost of performing the corrective maintenance line item. Instead, the $44.36 million government-provided amount was included in each offeror's total evaluated price. Because service-order prices would be negotiated as individual requirements arose during contract performance, GAO dismissed Weston's allegation for failing to state a valid basis for protest.
Weston also argued that Pond's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's pricing requirements and contained unbalanced pricing. GAO dismissed those allegations because Weston was not an interested party to pursue them. Even if GAO had found Pond's price evaluation improper, another offeror with a lower price than Weston would have been next in line for the award.
GAO also declined to consider Weston's related challenge to the best-value decision because it was based on the price-evaluation allegations that had been dismissed.
The protest was dismissed.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424543.2
Publicly Released on: Sept. 24, 2026. Published: Sept. 9, 2026.
John G. Horan, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for the protester.
Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Brian E. Doll, Jr., Esq., and Jillian I. Stern, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Pond Constructors, Inc., the intervenor.
Robert I. Moore, Esq., and Allen S. Black, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Acacia Center for Justice Protest of HHS Legal Services Solicitation
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by the Acacia Center for Justice challenging the terms of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services solicitation for legal services for unaccompanied migrant children.
The Sept. 18 decision was issued by HHS' Office of Refugee Resettlement. Acacia, the incumbent provider of the services, argued that several solicitation requirements were unduly restrictive of competition or otherwise unreasonable.
The solicitation anticipates a five-year contract to provide legal services, including direct representation for
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by the Acacia Center for Justice challenging the terms of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services solicitation for legal services for unaccompanied migrant children.
The Sept. 18 decision was issued by HHS' Office of Refugee Resettlement. Acacia, the incumbent provider of the services, argued that several solicitation requirements were unduly restrictive of competition or otherwise unreasonable.
The solicitation anticipates a five-year contract to provide legal services, including direct representation forunaccompanied children in immigration court and Department of Homeland Security proceedings. The contract uses firm-fixed unit pricing for specified legal services, with payment generally tied to completion of a service or a defined phase of service.
Acacia challenged the requirement that contractors wait until services or service phases were completed before submitting invoices. The organization argued that lengthy immigration proceedings could delay payment and create financial burdens for contractors. GAO found that HHS had reasonably justified the invoicing structure based on problems with previous payment models, including improper incentives and what the agency characterized as wasteful overpayments.
The protester also argued that the solicitation required the contractor to provide representation at every hearing for potentially 126,000 children. GAO rejected that interpretation, finding that the solicitation, when read as a whole, requires the contractor to offer direct representation and provide representation to children who accept those services. The solicitation also clarified that a child having private counsel or declining representation would not constitute a contractual nonconformance.
Acacia further challenged requirements to submit supporting documentation with invoices, arguing that linking case information to government records could disclose personally identifiable or confidential information. HHS said the documentation was needed to verify that billed services were actually provided and were properly chargeable under the contract.
GAO found the requirement reasonably necessary for HHS to verify services and prevent payment for services on closed cases. It also noted that the solicitation requires contractors to notify the agency of ethical conflicts and does not require disclosure of confidential or privileged information.
GAO concluded that Acacia had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the challenged requirements were impossible to meet or unduly restricted competition. The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424162.4
Publicly Released on: Sept. 23, 2026. Published: Sept. 18, 2026
Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., and Karla J. Letsche, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for the protester.
Terrius D. Greene, Esq., and Tami S. Hagberg, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Jungi Hong, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies IWorks Protest of Defense Agency Order to ICF
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by iWorks Corp., McLean, Virginia, challenging the issuance of a $43.8 million order to ICF Inc. LLC, Reston, Virginia, for information technology services supporting the Defense Information System for Security's personnel security systems.
The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued the solicitation in March 2026 for services to sustain the Defense Information System for Security, the department's web-based system for managing personnel security, suitability and credentialing. The contractor also will
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by iWorks Corp., McLean, Virginia, challenging the issuance of a $43.8 million order to ICF Inc. LLC, Reston, Virginia, for information technology services supporting the Defense Information System for Security's personnel security systems.
The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued the solicitation in March 2026 for services to sustain the Defense Information System for Security, the department's web-based system for managing personnel security, suitability and credentialing. The contractor also willdevelop and sustain the new Personnel Vetting, Adjudications and Appeals Management System.
The solicitation called for a one-year base period and four one-year options and provided for a best-value tradeoff based on technical approach, staffing approach and price. Technical factors were more important than price.
The agency received seven quotations, including those from iWorks and ICF. Both companies received high-confidence ratings for their technical and staffing approaches, and both were found to have suitable labor categories and mixes.
ICF's total evaluated price was $43.81 million, compared with $73.41 million for iWorks. The contracting officer determined that iWorks' technical advantages did not warrant the $32.3 million price premium and selected ICF's quotation as the best value.
iWorks challenged the evaluation on several grounds, arguing that the agency failed to reasonably assess ICF's labor mix, staffing level and risk. It also alleged that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, treated the two companies differently in evaluating their technical approaches and conducted a flawed best-value determination.
GAO found that the agency reasonably evaluated ICF's pricing and staffing. The agency reviewed ICF's proposed labor categories, labor mix and fully burdened labor rates and determined they were consistent with the company's existing pricing agreement. It also found ICF's proposed level of effort and labor mix reasonable in the context of its technical and staffing approaches.
GAO also found that the agency considered risk associated with ICF's approach. Although the agency identified a concern involving ICF's subcontractor roles and proposed schedule, it ultimately assessed the quotation as presenting low risk.
The watchdog rejected iWorks' argument that the agency improperly assessed two "decreases confidence" findings to its quotation. Both companies received high-confidence ratings, and GAO found the findings were not relied upon in the source selection decision, meaning iWorks could not demonstrate competitive prejudice.
GAO likewise found no evidence of disparate treatment in the evaluation of the companies' user-centered design approaches. The agency identified strengths in both approaches but determined that ICF's approach had distinct features that warranted additional credit.
GAO concluded that the agency's best-value determination reasonably considered the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the quotations and the $32.3 million price difference.
The protest was denied Sept. 14.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424555%2Cb-424555.2%2Cb-424555.3
Publicly Released on: Sept. 28, 2026. Published: Sept. 14, 2026.
Eric A. Valle, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Rachael C. Haley, Esq., and Kristine E. Cralle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester.
Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for ICF Incorporated, L.L.C., the intervenor.
Matthew Donohue, Esq., Katie Oyler, Esq., and Tiffany Williams, Esq., Defense Counterintelligence and Security 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 Denies Tryfacta Protest Over Defense Health Agency Medical Staffing Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by Tryfacta Inc., a small business in Pleasanton, California, challenging the issuance of a medical staffing task order to Magnolia Government Solutions LLC, a small business in Orlando, Florida, by the Defense Defense Health Agency.
The $95.3 million task order, issued May 29, covers 113 full-time medical service positions at the Mike O'Callaghan Military Medical Center at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada. The procurement included an eight-month base period, four 12-month option periods and a possible six-month
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by Tryfacta Inc., a small business in Pleasanton, California, challenging the issuance of a medical staffing task order to Magnolia Government Solutions LLC, a small business in Orlando, Florida, by the Defense Defense Health Agency.
The $95.3 million task order, issued May 29, covers 113 full-time medical service positions at the Mike O'Callaghan Military Medical Center at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada. The procurement included an eight-month base period, four 12-month option periods and a possible six-monthextension.
Tryfacta challenged the agency's decision to rate its proposal unacceptable under the compensation plan factor. The company argued that the Defense Health Agency applied an undisclosed evaluation criterion by using a numerical benchmark to determine whether its proposed employee compensation was sufficient to recruit and retain qualified medical personnel.
GAO said the solicitation required the agency to evaluate compensation for each labor category and performance period, considering market data, geographic factors, historical compensation, the independent government cost estimate and competitiveness over the life of the contract.
The agency developed its cost estimate using compensation information for the Las Vegas labor market and established a baseline based on the 70th percentile of annual salaries for each labor category. It then compared offerors' proposed direct labor rates and fringe benefits against those estimates.
The Defense Health Agency marked a labor category as failing when proposed compensation was at least 10% below the corresponding government estimate. A compensation plan was considered unacceptable when more than 10% of its labor categories fell below that benchmark.
Tryfacta's proposed compensation fell below the benchmark for three labor categories during the base period, nine during the first option year, 11 during the second, 17 during the third and 21 during the fourth. Because more than 10% of the labor categories fell below the benchmark, the agency rated Tryfacta unacceptable and did not evaluate its proposal further.
GAO found the 90% benchmark was a reasonable evaluation methodology rather than an undisclosed evaluation criterion. The solicitation expressly permitted the agency to use the government estimate and market information to determine whether proposed compensation was adequate.
GAO also rejected Tryfacta's argument that the agency should have conducted a separate qualitative review of its recruitment plan and past performance. The solicitation limited the compensation-plan evaluation to labor-rate information submitted in the required worksheet.
The protest was denied Sept. 17.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424600%2Cb-424600.2
Publicly Released on: Sept. 29, 2026. Published: Sept. 17, 2026.
Ronald D. Sullivan, Esq., Bret S. Wacker, Esq., and Gabrielle Long, Esq., Clark Hill PLC, for the protester.
Matthew Vasquez, Esq., Defense Health 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.
GAO Denies Soltek Pacific Construction, Whiting-Turner Protests of Navy Construction Competition
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied protests by SOLPAC Construction Inc. dba Soltek Pacific Construction Co., San Diego, California, and Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Maryland, challenging their exclusion from a U.S. Navy construction competition.
The protests involved a solicitation issued by the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command-Southwest for construction, renovation and repair of commercial and institutional facilities in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The Navy planned to award up to eight contracts,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied protests by SOLPAC Construction Inc. dba Soltek Pacific Construction Co., San Diego, California, and Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Maryland, challenging their exclusion from a U.S. Navy construction competition.
The protests involved a solicitation issued by the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command-Southwest for construction, renovation and repair of commercial and institutional facilities in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The Navy planned to award up to eight contracts,each with a two-year base period and three one-year options.
The two-phase competition evaluated proposals based on technical approach, experience, past performance and safety. Soltek and Whiting-Turner received acceptable ratings for technical approach and outstanding ratings for experience and safety. Both received a "satisfactory confidence" rating for past performance but were excluded from the second phase because the Navy determined they were not among the most highly qualified offerors.
In decisions dated Sept. 4, GAO said the Navy reasonably evaluated the companies' past performance and acted consistently with the solicitation.
Soltek argued the Navy improperly considered negative information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, or CPARS, involving projects that Soltek had not identified in its proposal. It also challenged the relevance of the additional evaluations and the agency's consideration of interim CPARS ratings.
Whiting-Turner raised similar objections, arguing that the Navy relied on negative CPARS information while overlooking more favorable performance records and improperly considered interim evaluations when final evaluations were available.
GAO found that the solicitation expressly allowed the Navy to obtain past performance information from "any and all sources," including CPARS records associated with the offerors' identification numbers. The agency was therefore not limited to projects submitted with the proposals.
The agency identified four additional CPARS evaluations with marginal ratings for Soltek and 10 for Whiting-Turner. However, it also considered the companies' positive performance records and concluded that the adverse information did not show a trend of poor performance.
GAO also found that the solicitation and a subsequent agency response expressly allowed consideration of both interim and final CPARS evaluations. The agency reasonably considered the interim evaluations because they covered performance within the solicitation's seven-year recency period.
GAO concluded that the Navy reasonably evaluated the companies' past performance and assigned both a satisfactory-confidence rating. The protests were denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424537%2Cb-424537.3%2Cb-424537.6
Publicly Released on: Sept. 25, 2026. Published: Sept. 4, 2026.
Kirk J. McCormick, Esq., Ruberto, Israel & Weiner, P.C., for Soltek Pacific Construction Company; and Steven J. Weber, Esq., Michael A. Branca, Esq., and Stormy Mayfield, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, PC, for The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the protesters.
Deana R. Jaeger, Esq., Erin L. Hernandez, Esq., and R. Erik Hensley, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Patriot Contract Services Protest Over Navy Corrective Action
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Patriot Contract Services LLC, Houston, Texas, challenging corrective action by the U.S. Navy in a competition for operation and maintenance services for ocean surveillance and range instrumentation ships.
The protest involved a request for proposals issued by the U.S. Navy Military Sealift Command for a single fixed-price contract covering a one-year base period, four one-year options and a six-month option period. The contract requires the contractor to provide crews, equipment, supplies and operational and technical
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Patriot Contract Services LLC, Houston, Texas, challenging corrective action by the U.S. Navy in a competition for operation and maintenance services for ocean surveillance and range instrumentation ships.
The protest involved a request for proposals issued by the U.S. Navy Military Sealift Command for a single fixed-price contract covering a one-year base period, four one-year options and a six-month option period. The contract requires the contractor to provide crews, equipment, supplies and operational and technicalsupport for the vessels.
The solicitation called for award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Four proposals were submitted, with three ultimately placed in the competitive range. All three received acceptable ratings on the non-price factors, and their prices were found fair, reasonable and balanced. Patriot's proposal was determined to have the lowest price.
The Navy awarded the contract to Patriot in April 2026. KIRA Information Solutions LLC subsequently filed a protest challenging the award, including allegations that Patriot had made a material misrepresentation in its proposal and that the Navy had unreasonably evaluated price and technical risk.
The Navy responded by announcing corrective action that would reopen discussions, update evaluation notices, amend the solicitation, allow revised proposals from competitive-range offerors and conduct a new evaluation and source selection.
Patriot challenged the corrective action, arguing that the Navy had not identified a procurement impropriety warranting such extensive action and that reopening the competition would unfairly disadvantage Patriot because its winning price had already been disclosed.
GAO found the corrective action had a reasonable basis. The contracting officer identified concerns that the offerors' price proposals were more than six months old, that events affecting international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz had affected civilian mariner compensation, and that a new Department of Labor wage determination would affect labor costs.
GAO also found numerous problems with the evaluation of non-price factors. The contracting officer determined that none of the three proposals was eligible for award because of deficiencies and errors in the evaluation and documentation.
Among the issues, the Navy failed to evaluate offerors' compliance with a requirement concerning timely payments to small-business subcontractors. The agency also failed to adequately evaluate whether offerors had provided required Coast Guard inspection deficiency notices and contract deficiency reports.
GAO concluded that the errors were material and pervasive enough that it could not determine that offerors had not been competitively prejudiced.
The decision also rejected Patriot's argument concerning disclosure of its price. GAO said an agency may reopen a competition even when the original awardee's price has been disclosed, particularly when the disclosure occurred properly as part of the post-award process.
GAO denied Patriot's protest on Sept. 17.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424516.2%2Cb-424516.3
Publicly Released on: Sept. 28, 2026. Published: Sept. 17, 2026.
Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., and Blaine L. Hutchison, Esq., DLA Piper LLP, for the protester.
Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., James A. Sabia, Esq., Emily M. Rios, Esq., and James Y. Boland, Esq., Venable LLP, for KIRA Information Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
Ann Caroline M. Calabrese, Esq., John E. Toner, Esq., Thomas A. Cloud, Esq., Tracy Trickett, Esq., and James Chisholm, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies CSA Global Protest Over Army Training Services Task Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by CSA Global LLC, doing business as Client Solution Architects, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, challenging the issuance of a task order to Valiant Global Defense Services Inc., Herndon, Virginia, for Army training services.
CSA argued that the U.S. Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal and conducted an improper best-value tradeoff. GAO found that the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.
The Army issued the solicitation in July 2025 to large-business vendors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by CSA Global LLC, doing business as Client Solution Architects, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, challenging the issuance of a task order to Valiant Global Defense Services Inc., Herndon, Virginia, for Army training services.
CSA argued that the U.S. Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal and conducted an improper best-value tradeoff. GAO found that the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.
The Army issued the solicitation in July 2025 to large-business vendorsholding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under the Army's Mission Training Complex Capabilities Support multiple-award contract. The solicitation sought training, technical, exercise, simulation and organizational support for the Army National Guard's Mission Command Training Support Program.
The solicitation contemplated a task order with a phase-in period, an 11-month base period and four one-year options, plus a six-month extension option. Award was to be based on technical capability, small-business commitment and price, with technical capability more important than the other factors.
Six companies submitted proposals. The Army initially selected General Dynamics Information Technology, but after two unsuccessful offerors protested, the agency took corrective action and reevaluated the proposals. The Army ultimately selected Valiant.
CSA received an overall acceptable technical rating, compared with a good rating for Valiant. Both received acceptable ratings for small-business commitment. CSA's total evaluated price was $288.6 million, compared with $299.2 million for Valiant.
CSA challenged a risk assessment under the staffing-plan subfactor concerning its ability to conduct two simultaneous simulation exercises at each mission training complex. The solicitation required contractors to provide sufficient personnel to support one large and one medium-scale exercise simultaneously.
GAO found the Army reasonably concluded that CSA's proposed staffing was insufficient. CSA's proposal stated that 10 personnel were needed to operate one training event using the Army's Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability simulation tool. GAO found that CSA's proposed staffing levels at the various training complexes would not provide enough personnel to operate a second event simultaneously.
CSA also argued that it was unreasonable for the Army to identify the risk during the reevaluation when the risk had not been identified during the original evaluation. GAO disagreed, explaining that a reevaluation may produce different findings and conclusions. The key issue was whether the final evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. GAO found that the difference here was not sufficiently significant to require the source selection authority to reconcile the two evaluations, particularly because CSA retained an acceptable rating under the staffing-plan subfactor.
GAO also rejected CSA's challenge to the best-value tradeoff. The source selection authority considered CSA's lower price but found Valiant's proposal technically superior under the two most important technical subfactors. Valiant offered stronger approaches involving key personnel, knowledge management and simulation staffing, as well as a more robust recruitment and retention risk-mitigation plan.
GAO concluded that the Army had a reasonable basis for selecting Valiant's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal despite its approximately $10.6 million price premium.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO:
Publicly Released on: Sept. 17, 2026. Published: Aug. 28, 2026
Lee Dougherty, Esq., Esna Mihail, Esq., and Bryan Short, Esq., Effectus PLLC, for the protester.
Daniel R. Forman, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., and Lilliam Drenth, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Valiant Global Defense Services Inc., the intervenor.
Paula S. Klotzback, Esq., Alexzina Taylor Wilks, Esq., and Wade L. Browen, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
