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 Protest by Wave Digital Assets in Cryptocurrency Asset Management Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Wave Digital Assets LLC, of Los Angeles, California, challenging the award of a contract by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to Command Services & Support, Inc. (CMDSS), of Haymarket, Virginia. The contract, awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M50024QA4400003, seeks assistance in managing and disposing of seized and forfeited cryptocurrency assets.
Wave Digital Assets, whose own proposal was deemed technically unacceptable (a determination not contested in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Wave Digital Assets LLC, of Los Angeles, California, challenging the award of a contract by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to Command Services & Support, Inc. (CMDSS), of Haymarket, Virginia. The contract, awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M50024QA4400003, seeks assistance in managing and disposing of seized and forfeited cryptocurrency assets.
Wave Digital Assets, whose own proposal was deemed technically unacceptable (a determination not contested inthe protest), argued that the proposals of CMDSS and a third competing offeror should have been rejected. Wave asserted that neither demonstrated possession of the necessary federal and state licenses to handle cryptocurrency.
In its decision dated March 14, 2025, the GAO found the agency's evaluation to be reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The GAO stated that the solicitation's requirement for the contractor to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and to obtain necessary licenses, pertains to contract administration rather than the evaluation of proposals. The solicitation did not specify any particular licenses that offerors were required to possess at the time of proposal submission.
The GAO also rejected Wave's argument that the agency inadequately considered how offerors would comply with relevant laws. The agency had evaluated each offeror's proposed systems for ensuring regulatory compliance, assigning a "high confidence" rating to Wave's approach and "some confidence" ratings to the approaches of CMDSS and the third offeror. The GAO found these assessments reasonable given the evolving nature of cryptocurrency regulations.
Ultimately, the GAO concluded that Wave's protest sought to introduce unstated evaluation factors into the procurement process and found no basis to sustain the protest against the award to Command Services & Support, Inc.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423217%2Cb-423217.2
Publicly Released on: Mar 31, 2025 Published: Mar 14, 2025
Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for the protester.
Francis E. Purcell Jr., Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for Command Services & Support, Inc., the intervenor.
C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., Samantha Davis, Esq., Shandora Acrey, Esq., and Jonathan E. O'Connell, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Patrona Protest Over Navy Submarine Maintenance Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest by Patrona Corp., a small business based in Washington, D.C., challenging the Navy's issuance of a task order to KMS Solutions, LLC, a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia. The contract, under request for proposals No. N6660424R3003, concerns nuclear submarine maintenance support services. Patrona argued that the Navy's evaluation of its proposal and the subsequent source selection decision were flawed.
The GAO, under General Counsel Thomas J. Warren and Alexander O. Levine, found no basis to uphold Patrona's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest by Patrona Corp., a small business based in Washington, D.C., challenging the Navy's issuance of a task order to KMS Solutions, LLC, a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia. The contract, under request for proposals No. N6660424R3003, concerns nuclear submarine maintenance support services. Patrona argued that the Navy's evaluation of its proposal and the subsequent source selection decision were flawed.
The GAO, under General Counsel Thomas J. Warren and Alexander O. Levine, found no basis to uphold Patrona'sprotest. The Navy's solicitation sought proposals for nuclear submarine maintenance support services for the Submarine Maintenance Engineering, Planning and Procurement (SUBMEPP) activity. The Navy was to select a contractor based on a best-value tradeoff, considering technical factors, past performance, and cost.
Patrona contested the Navy's evaluation of its proposal under the technical factor, arguing that the agency failed to recognize several strengths in its technical approach, management approach, and personnel approach. Patrona asserted that its proposal warranted a higher rating than "acceptable." The GAO, however, sided with the Navy, finding that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's terms. The GAO noted that Patrona failed to demonstrate how its proposal exceeded the solicitation's requirements or warranted additional strengths.
Patrona also argued that the Navy should have given more weight to its past performance and positive ratings on the incumbent contract. The GAO rejected this argument, stating that the solicitation's evaluation criteria did not require the agency to align its evaluation findings with Patrona's prior performance assessments.
Ultimately, the GAO determined that the Navy's evaluation of Patrona's proposal and the source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. The GAO found no evidence to support Patrona's claims of evaluation errors and denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423282
Publicly Released on: May 1, 2025 Published: Apr 18, 2025
Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., and Allison P. Klena, Esq., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., for the protester.
Todd W. Muse, Esq., Denny Phane, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Protest by A Square Group Over CMS Task Order Award to Cogent People
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by A Square Group LLC (ASG), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, challenging the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) award of a task order to Cogent People Inc. (Cogent), a small business of Columbia, Maryland. The task order, issued under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 230314, is for health insurance marketplace and financial management operational analytics.
ASG contested CMS's evaluation of Cogent's quotation and the agency's determination
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by A Square Group LLC (ASG), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, challenging the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) award of a task order to Cogent People Inc. (Cogent), a small business of Columbia, Maryland. The task order, issued under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 230314, is for health insurance marketplace and financial management operational analytics.
ASG contested CMS's evaluation of Cogent's quotation and the agency's determinationthat Cogent was the best-suited vendor. The protester also raised concerns about CMS's conduct of exchanges with Cogent.
In its decision released on April 11, 2025, the GAO found that CMS's evaluation of Cogent's quotation and its selection as the best-suited vendor were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The GAO stated that while ASG disagreed with the agency's judgment, it did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the evaluation and best-suited vendor determination were unreasonable. The GAO highlighted that in best-value procurements, agencies have broad discretion in making price and technical tradeoff decisions, and in this case, CMS reasonably determined that the advantages in ASG's higher-priced quotation were not worth the additional cost.
Regarding ASG's allegations of unfair exchanges, the GAO found that CMS's communications with Cogent were conducted in accordance with the terms of the RFQ, which reserved the right for the agency to communicate with only the best-suited vendor to address any remaining issues. The GAO noted that the RFQ did not limit the number of exchanges CMS could hold with the selected vendor.
The legal representation in this matter included David B. Dixon, Esq., Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., and Aleksey Dabbs, Esq., of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for A Square Group; Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., David Bodner, Esq., and Samarth Barot, Esq., of Blank Rome LLP, for Cogent People, Inc.; and Damon A. Brown, Esq., of the Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., of the Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421792.5
Publicly Released on: Apr 18, 2025 Published: Apr 11, 2025
David B. Dixon, Esq., Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., and Aleksey Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester.
Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., David Bodner, Esq., Samarth Barot, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Cogent People, Inc., the intervenor.
Damon A. Brown, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Again Denies Reconsideration Request by Mission Analytics in NIST LED Display Procurement
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- For the second time, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a request for reconsideration from Mission Analytics, LLC, a small business in Falls Church, Virginia. This latest request sought to overturn the GAO's decision, Mission Analytics, LLC, B-422841.3, Dec. 11, 2024, 2024 CPD paragraph 305, which dismissed its protest against the Department of Commerce, National Institute for Standards and Technology's (NIST) issuance of a purchase order for a direct view light-emitting diodes (LED) display system under RFQ No. 1333ND24QNB770135.
In its initial protest,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- For the second time, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a request for reconsideration from Mission Analytics, LLC, a small business in Falls Church, Virginia. This latest request sought to overturn the GAO's decision, Mission Analytics, LLC, B-422841.3, Dec. 11, 2024, 2024 CPD paragraph 305, which dismissed its protest against the Department of Commerce, National Institute for Standards and Technology's (NIST) issuance of a purchase order for a direct view light-emitting diodes (LED) display system under RFQ No. 1333ND24QNB770135.
In its initial protest,Mission Analytics argued that NIST violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 33.103(f) by issuing the purchase order while the company's agency-level protest was allegedly pending. The GAO dismissed this protest, finding that the record did not support Mission Analytics's claim of a pending agency-level protest at the time of the award. The GAO also concluded that, even if such a procedural defect existed, Mission Analytics failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice.
In its second request for reconsideration, Mission Analytics argued that the GAO's decision contained errors of fact and law. The company contended that the GAO incorrectly concluded there was no pending agency-level protest and that it was not prejudiced by NIST's actions. Mission Analytics also argued that the GAO misrepresented the language of FAR section 19.507(h) and that the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) lacked jurisdiction over waivers of the nonmanufacturer rule, a point raised in the underlying procurement.
However, in its decision released on April 22, 2025, the GAO again denied the request for reconsideration. The GAO reiterated that Mission Analytics had not demonstrated any material errors of fact or law in its prior decision. The GAO clarified that the contracting officer effectively resolved Mission Analytics's agency-level protest by proceeding with the procurement without taking the requested corrective action. The GAO also found no error in its citation of the FAR clause and affirmed that its reference to the OHA decision was solely for factual background and did not impact the outcome of the protest. The GAO concluded that Mission Analytics's arguments did not provide a basis to reverse or modify its prior decision.
The legal representation for this reconsideration included Michael F. Winters for Mission Analytics, and Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., of the Department of Commerce, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., of the Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422841.4
Publicly Released on: Apr 22, 2025 Published: Apr 22, 2025
Michael F. Winters for the requester.
Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Department of Commerce, 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.
GAO Backs Army Corps' Cancellation of VA Medical Facility Solicitation
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Davenergy-VCI JV LLC, a small business located in Apex, North Carolina. The protest challenged the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers' cancellation of solicitation No. W9127N24R0029. This solicitation sought architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects for the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. Davenergy-VCI JV argued that the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation was unreasonable and improper.
The Army
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Davenergy-VCI JV LLC, a small business located in Apex, North Carolina. The protest challenged the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers' cancellation of solicitation No. W9127N24R0029. This solicitation sought architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects for the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. Davenergy-VCI JV argued that the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation was unreasonable and improper.
The ArmyCorps of Engineers initially issued the solicitation in March 2024, seeking an architect-engineer firm for a five-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a $25 million capacity. The solicitation outlined several upcoming VA projects in Oregon and Washington. In September 2024, the agency informed Davenergy-VCI JV that it was the most highly qualified firm. However, in February 2025, the agency notified the company of the solicitation's cancellation.
In its decision, the GAO, under General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, found the agency's cancellation to be reasonable. The Army Corps of Engineers explained that the most immediate project, the Portland DVA Phase 2, had been eliminated by the VA, and the associated funding had been returned. Additionally, the next scheduled project was not expected to commence for at least a year, and no funding was currently available for any of the remaining projects listed in the original solicitation.
The GAO acknowledged that the agency had incorrectly cited a specific Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section in its cancellation letter. However, the GAO stated that this error did not invalidate the cancellation, as a reasonable basis for the action existed. The GAO emphasized that an agency has broad discretion to cancel a solicitation when its needs change or when funding is no longer available. In this case, with the primary project canceled and no current funding for others, the GAO found the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation to be justified. The protest was accordingly denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423332
Publicly Released on: Apr 30, 2025 Published: Apr 29, 2025
Nicholas Nazarko, Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, for the protester.
Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., and Elisabeth A. Dixon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
