Featured Stories
GAO Dismisses z SofTech Reconsideration Request Over NASA Contract Protest
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a request for reconsideration filed by z SofTech Solutions Inc., a small business based in Atlanta, Georgia, seeking to revive its protest over its elimination from a NASA competition for government-wide information technology contracts.
The procurement involved request for proposals for the Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement VI program, covering information technology products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity and related services. NASA conducted the competition using a phased evaluation process that eliminated offerors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a request for reconsideration filed by z SofTech Solutions Inc., a small business based in Atlanta, Georgia, seeking to revive its protest over its elimination from a NASA competition for government-wide information technology contracts.
The procurement involved request for proposals for the Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement VI program, covering information technology products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity and related services. NASA conducted the competition using a phased evaluation process that eliminated offerorsat various stages.
The company asked GAO to reconsider its April decision dismissing its protest, arguing that the watchdog had incorrectly ruled that portions of its protest were untimely and that other allegations failed to establish a legally sufficient basis for review.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that z SofTech merely repeated claims raised during the original protest, misunderstood the prior decision and relied on an incorrect interpretation of the agency's bid protest regulations.
Regarding z SofTech's challenge to its elimination under one solicitation category, GAO reaffirmed that the protest was untimely because the company did not file its protest with the watchdog within 10 days after NASA denied its agency-level protest. Although z SofTech argued that it did not receive notice of its elimination until September 2025, GAO said the relevant deadline stemmed from NASA's Sept. 17, 2025, denial of the agency-level protest, not from the earlier notification date.
GAO also upheld its dismissal of the company's challenge involving another solicitation category. The decision found that z SofTech's initial protest contained only conclusory allegations and lacked sufficient factual and legal support to establish a valid basis for protest.
The watchdog further concluded that the company's later submissions, which included additional exhibits and supporting documentation, constituted an impermissible piecemeal development of protest grounds. GAO reiterated that protesters must provide all supporting information with their timely initial filing rather than supplementing deficient allegations later in the process.
Finding no legal or factual errors in its earlier decision, GAO dismissed the request for reconsideration, leaving NASA's elimination of z SofTech from the competition unchanged.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423306.22
Publicly Released on: July 9, 2026. Published: July 8, 2026.
Leticia Alexander, for the protester.
Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., and Stephen T. O'Neal, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 NORDAM Protest Against Navy Contract Award to Vertex
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by The NORDAM Group LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract to Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, for the repair and modification of SUU-79 pylons used on various naval aircraft.
The procurement, conducted by the Naval Supply Systems Command, sought proposals for one or more three-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. Although the solicitation stated that the Navy intended to make multiple awards, it also expressly reserved the right
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by The NORDAM Group LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract to Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, for the repair and modification of SUU-79 pylons used on various naval aircraft.
The procurement, conducted by the Naval Supply Systems Command, sought proposals for one or more three-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. Although the solicitation stated that the Navy intended to make multiple awards, it also expressly reserved the rightto make a single award. After evaluating proposals, the Navy awarded a single contract to Vertex.
NORDAM argued that the Navy should have made multiple awards, contending that a single award would increase costs and create risks associated with relying on one supplier. The company also alleged the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions during negotiations and improperly evaluated proposals under the solicitation's small business participation requirements.
The GAO dismissed NORDAM's challenge to the Navy's decision to make a single award, concluding that the issue amounted to an untimely challenge to the solicitation's terms because the solicitation clearly reserved the government's right to make only one award.
The watchdog also rejected NORDAM's claim that discussions were inadequate. The decision found the Navy repeatedly informed the company that its proposal failed to meet the solicitation's minimum requirement that at least 15 percent of the total contract value be performed by small businesses. According to the decision, NORDAM incorrectly calculated its small business participation using total subcontracting dollars rather than total contract value, despite the agency's clear guidance.
The GAO further upheld the Navy's refusal to consider NORDAM's revised proposal submitted more than two months after the deadline for final proposal revisions, finding that the late submission did not meet the requirements for acceptance under federal procurement regulations.
Finally, the GAO found the Navy reasonably evaluated Vertex's proposal under the small business participation factor. The record showed Vertex proposed more than the required minimum participation, relied on experienced small business subcontractors with prior Navy work, and demonstrated a history of meeting subcontracting goals.
The protest was denied in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424390
Publicly Released on: July 8, 2026. Published: July 7, 2026
Doug Brown, for the protester.
Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., and J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC, the intervenor.
Sherine N. Bediako, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 GSINA-Pacific Protest Against Army Corps Construction Contract Competition
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by GSINA-Pacific JV II LLC, Flemington, New Jersey, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' evaluation of its proposal and exclusion from the next phase of a major construction contract competition.
The procurement sought up to six multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts with a combined value of as much as $699 million for design-build and design-bid-build construction services supporting military petroleum, oil and lubricants infrastructure projects across the United States, Alaska, Hawaii and other
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by GSINA-Pacific JV II LLC, Flemington, New Jersey, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' evaluation of its proposal and exclusion from the next phase of a major construction contract competition.
The procurement sought up to six multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts with a combined value of as much as $699 million for design-build and design-bid-build construction services supporting military petroleum, oil and lubricants infrastructure projects across the United States, Alaska, Hawaii and otheroutlying areas.
GSINA-Pacific, a joint venture between GSI North America Inc. and GSI Pacific Inc., alleged that the Army Corps arbitrarily evaluated its phase-one proposal, improperly assessed the relevance of its past performance projects, and treated its proposal differently from those of competing offerors.
The GAO found that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Evaluators reviewed four past performance references submitted by GSINA-Pacific and determined that one project was "very relevant," two were "relevant," and one was "somewhat relevant." The agency ultimately assigned the proposal a "limited confidence" rating, indicating a low expectation that the company would successfully perform the required work.
A central dispute involved whether several of GSINA-Pacific's prior projects demonstrated experience in tank rehabilitation and tank cleaning. The watchdog concluded that while the company's proposal identified those capabilities, the underlying project descriptions did not adequately show that such work had actually been performed. The decision emphasized that offerors bear the responsibility for submitting proposals with sufficient detail for agencies to evaluate compliance with solicitation requirements.
The GAO also rejected claims that the Army Corps used unstated evaluation criteria or engaged in disparate treatment when comparing GSINA-Pacific's proposal with those submitted by Dawson Federal Inc. and Goshawk LLC. According to the decision, the competing projects were not substantively indistinguishable, and the agency documented meaningful differences in scope, complexity and prior performance.
Under the program management and technical approach factor, GSINA-Pacific received an "acceptable" rating based on one identified strength and one weakness. The watchdog found no competitive prejudice even if the challenged weakness had been removed, because the selected offerors received stronger overall ratings.
The Army Corps invited seven firms to submit phase-two proposals, while GSINA-Pacific was excluded from further consideration. The protest was denied in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424314.2
Publicly Released on: July 8, 2026. Published: June 18, 2026.
Kate H. Kennedy, Esq., Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq., and Matthew Gurr, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester.
Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., and Stacy K. Birkel, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Denies Weston Solutions, Tetra Tech Protests Over Army Corps Contract Award to Pond Constructors
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied protests by Weston Solutions Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Tetra Tech Inc., Collinsville, Illinois, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' award of a maintenance services contract to Pond Constructors Inc., Peachtree Corners, Georgia, in support of the Defense Logistics Agency.
The contract covers preventive and corrective maintenance for fuel program facilities throughout the Corps' South Atlantic Division, including sites in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Puerto Rico
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied protests by Weston Solutions Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Tetra Tech Inc., Collinsville, Illinois, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' award of a maintenance services contract to Pond Constructors Inc., Peachtree Corners, Georgia, in support of the Defense Logistics Agency.
The contract covers preventive and corrective maintenance for fuel program facilities throughout the Corps' South Atlantic Division, including sites in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands. The procurement called for a fixed-price contract with a one-year base period and two one-year option periods.
Four companies submitted proposals. Pond received ratings of "good" for technical approach, "substantial confidence" for past performance and "outstanding" for small business participation, with a proposed price of about $49.99 million. Weston earned an "acceptable" technical rating and proposed approximately $50.28 million, while Tetra Tech received an "outstanding" technical rating, a "satisfactory confidence" past performance rating and proposed about $50.46 million.
Weston challenged the Corps' assessment of a technical weakness and argued that evaluators failed to credit several strengths in its proposal, including its incumbent workforce. Tetra Tech argued that Pond's technical proposal and past performance were improperly evaluated and that the agency made an unreasonable best-value determination.
GAO rejected all of the allegations.
The decision found that the Corps reasonably assigned Weston a weakness after concluding its proposal appeared to rely on an incorrect service-order process for certain corrective maintenance work. GAO also agreed that the agency was not required to award additional strengths simply because Weston proposed experienced incumbent personnel, noting that proposals must clearly demonstrate features exceeding solicitation requirements.
GAO also upheld the evaluation of Pond's proposal, concluding the agency reasonably credited the firm's network of nine branch offices and other technical advantages. The watchdog found no evidence that the Corps improperly evaluated Pond's past performance or overlooked relevant information.
The decision further upheld the source selection authority's independent assessment that Pond's proposal offered the best overall value. Although Tetra Tech received a higher adjectival technical rating, the source selection authority reasonably determined that Pond's technical strengths were more valuable to the government, while Pond also offered stronger past performance, an equivalent small business participation rating and the lowest overall price.
Finding the evaluation and best-value tradeoff consistent with the solicitation and procurement regulations, GAO denied both protests.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424322%2Cb-424322.3%2Cb-424322.2%2Cb-424322.4
Publicly Released on: July 7, 2026 Published: June 18, 2026
John G. Horan, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for Weston Solutions, Inc.; and Holly A. Roth, Esq., John M. McAdams III, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Tetra Tech, Inc., the protesters.
Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Pond Constructors, Inc., the intervenor.
Allen Scott Black, Esq., United States Army, for the agency.
Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Strategic Alliance Business Group Protest Over NASA Contract Competition
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Strategic Alliance Business Group LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, challenging its elimination from a NASA competition for a government-wide information technology services contract valued at up to $20 billion.
The protest involved NASA's sixth-generation Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, which will provide information technology products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity, audiovisual services and related support through multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Strategic Alliance Business Group LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, challenging its elimination from a NASA competition for a government-wide information technology services contract valued at up to $20 billion.
The protest involved NASA's sixth-generation Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, which will provide information technology products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity, audiovisual services and related support through multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a10-year ordering period.
Strategic Alliance Business Group submitted proposals for two contract categories covering enterprise-wide and mission-based IT services. NASA removed both proposals from consideration after determining that the company failed to include either a required Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) attestation form or an Open Trusted Technology Provider Standard certification, both of which the solicitation identified as mandatory.
The company argued that its management approach narrative sufficiently demonstrated its cybersecurity supply chain capabilities and that NASA should have sought clarifications regarding the omitted documentation rather than eliminating its proposals.
GAO rejected both arguments.
The decision found that the solicitation expressly required offerors to submit either the C-SCRM attestation form or the certification and warned that failure to respond to all required proposal elements would render an offeror ineligible for award. GAO noted that Strategic acknowledged it had inadvertently failed to include the required attestation form.
According to GAO, while the company's proposal discussed its corporate cybersecurity processes, it did not provide the specific attestations required by the solicitation regarding compliance with 15 supply chain risk management and information security controls.
GAO emphasized that offerors bear the responsibility for submitting proposals that contain all information required by a solicitation and that agencies may reasonably reject proposals that omit mandatory documentation.
The watchdog also concluded that NASA was not obligated to request clarifications. Under federal procurement rules, clarifications are discretionary and may not be used to remedy material proposal omissions or deficiencies. Allowing Strategic to submit the missing attestation after proposals were received would have constituted a material revision rather than a permissible clarification, GAO said.
Finding NASA's evaluation consistent with the solicitation and procurement regulations, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423306.19
Publicly Released on: July 2, 2026 Published: July 2, 2026
Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq., Randolph Law, PLLC, for the protester.
Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., and Stephen T. O'Neal, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Rockville's FCN Reconsideration Request in IRS Procurement Protest
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by FCN Inc., Rockville, Maryland, to reconsider a prior decision rejecting the company's protest over a U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service solicitation for enterprise virtualization and cloud platform services.
The reconsideration request stemmed from GAO's May 13 decision, which upheld the terms of a request for quotations seeking a contractor to replace the Internal Revenue Service's existing VMware-based virtualization environment with the Nutanix Cloud Platform or an equivalent alternative.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by FCN Inc., Rockville, Maryland, to reconsider a prior decision rejecting the company's protest over a U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service solicitation for enterprise virtualization and cloud platform services.
The reconsideration request stemmed from GAO's May 13 decision, which upheld the terms of a request for quotations seeking a contractor to replace the Internal Revenue Service's existing VMware-based virtualization environment with the Nutanix Cloud Platform or an equivalent alternative.The contract covers the migration of about 10,000 virtual machines and ongoing platform support.
FCN argued that GAO had improperly dismissed one of its protest allegations as untimely. Specifically, the company contended that the solicitation failed to provide sufficient technical or salient characteristics for certain Nutanix products listed in the bill of materials, making it unclear what would qualify as an equivalent product.
GAO rejected that argument, concluding that FCN had not raised the alleged ambiguity in its original protest before the solicitation deadline, as required by the agency's bid protest regulations.
According to the decision, FCN's initial protest focused on claims that the solicitation was unduly restrictive because it favored Nutanix products and effectively created a sole-source procurement. While the company referenced the listing of Nutanix model numbers without detailed specifications, GAO found that those references supported its competition-related arguments rather than constituting a separate challenge that the solicitation itself was ambiguous.
GAO also rejected FCN's assertion that the Internal Revenue Service had understood and responded to the alleged ambiguity during the original protest. Instead, the agency's report addressed only FCN's claims that the solicitation was overly restrictive and improperly favored Nutanix, GAO said.
The decision emphasized that bid protesters must clearly identify each protest ground in their initial filings and cannot introduce new solicitation challenges later through comments. Allowing otherwise would undermine the requirement that challenges to apparent solicitation defects be filed before proposals are due and would hinder the efficient resolution of bid protests.
GAO therefore found no factual or legal error in its earlier decision and denied FCN's request for reconsideration.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424249.2
Publicly Released on: June 26, 2026 Published: June 15, 2026
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips III, Esq., and Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester.
Nickolas S. Card, Esq., Justin M. Wakefield, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, 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 Stondoh LLC Protest Over Labor Dept. Award to WINTrio
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Stondoh LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor's decision to award a task order to WINTrio LLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for security assessment and validation services supporting federal information systems.
The procurement sought professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services under a small business set-aside solicitation. The contract includes a one-year base period and four one-year option periods and was competed under the Federal Supply Schedule.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Stondoh LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor's decision to award a task order to WINTrio LLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for security assessment and validation services supporting federal information systems.
The procurement sought professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services under a small business set-aside solicitation. The contract includes a one-year base period and four one-year option periods and was competed under the Federal Supply Schedule.
TheDepartment of Labor received 26 quotations and evaluated them based on technical merit and price, with technical factors carrying significantly greater weight.
Stondoh received an "outstanding" technical rating and proposed a price of $979,800. WINTrio earned a "good" technical rating but submitted a substantially lower price of $550,276, slightly below the government's independent cost estimate of about $560,000.
Stondoh argued that the agency's best-value determination improperly discounted the advantages of its technically superior quotation and relied almost entirely on the significant price difference between the two vendors.
GAO disagreed, finding that the record showed the contracting officer, who also served as the source selection authority, thoroughly considered the strengths and weaknesses of both quotations before concluding that WINTrio offered the best value.
The decision noted that evaluators identified nine significant strengths and no weaknesses in Stondoh's quotation, while WINTrio received nine strengths but also six weaknesses. Despite recognizing Stondoh's superior technical approach, the source selection authority determined that its technical advantages did not justify paying a price approximately 75 percent higher than WINTrio's offer and the government's cost estimate.
GAO said the source selection authority documented the comparison in detail, including Stondoh's willingness to exceed solicitation requirements and WINTrio's mature management approach, while also acknowledging weaknesses in WINTrio's continuous monitoring and risk prioritization.
The watchdog concluded that the Department of Labor reasonably balanced technical merit against price in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. It emphasized that agencies may properly select a lower-priced, lower-rated quotation when they reasonably determine that the higher-rated proposal's additional technical benefits are not worth the price premium.
Finding the best-value tradeoff rational, well documented and consistent with procurement regulations, GAO denied Stondoh's protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424439
Publicly Released on: July 7, 2026 Published: July 6, 2026
LaTonya Hall for the protester.
Jonathan Heinz, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency.
Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Oready Protest Over GPO Printing Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Oready LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, challenging the Government Publishing Office's determination that the company was not responsible to perform a contract for printing U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service manuals.
The procurement sought a single-award contract with a base period through May 31, 2027, and four one-year option periods. The work required the contractor to print IRS internal revenue manuals and perform related publishing, printing, binding, packing and distribution services. Because
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Oready LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, challenging the Government Publishing Office's determination that the company was not responsible to perform a contract for printing U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service manuals.
The procurement sought a single-award contract with a base period through May 31, 2027, and four one-year option periods. The work required the contractor to print IRS internal revenue manuals and perform related publishing, printing, binding, packing and distribution services. Becausethe manuals contain sensitive but unclassified and personally identifiable information, the solicitation required detailed pre-award plans covering quality control, security and waste disposal.
After determining that Oready had submitted the lowest-priced bid, the Government Publishing Office requested the firm's pre-award production plans to assess its responsibility. Following reviews by both the IRS and the agency's quality control staff, officials identified multiple concerns, including incomplete security measures, insufficient production details and questions about whether the company's equipment could meet the contract's quality requirements.
The agency requested additional information and revised plans, but concluded that Oready still failed to provide adequate documentation. The contracting officer also found that the company had not demonstrated its ability to meet the required Quality Level IV printing standard because it neither submitted printing samples for evaluation nor provided evidence of comparable past performance.
Oready argued that it had submitted all plans required by the solicitation and contended that the Government Publishing Office improperly imposed additional, unstated requirements during the responsibility review.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that the contracting officer reasonably exercised broad discretion in evaluating the firm's responsibility. The decision noted that agencies may request additional evidence of a bidder's technical and production capabilities when determining responsibility, as expressly permitted by the solicitation.
GAO also found that the agency repeatedly informed Oready of deficiencies in its submissions and gave the company an opportunity to provide additional information. However, the record showed that Oready declined to furnish some requested documentation, including certain facility and production details, while agency evaluators continued to question whether its proposed equipment could perform the required work.
The watchdog concluded that the Government Publishing Office's nonresponsibility determination was supported by the record and had a reasonable basis. Finding no evidence that the contracting officer abused her discretion or acted in bad faith, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424375
Publicly Released on: July 7, 2026 Published: July 6, 2026
Mike Farro for the protester.
Nicole Goldstein, Esq., and James Goodman III, Esq., Government Publishing Office, for the agency.
Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DarkStar Intelligence Protest Against Air Force Award to Starlo Innovation Denied by GAO
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DarkStar Intelligence LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Starlo Innovation LLC for intelligence and operational support services.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside under the General Services Administration's OASIS+ contract vehicle, sought contractor support for the Narcotics and Transnational Crime Support Center, which assists the Department of Defense and law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking, terrorism and transnational
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DarkStar Intelligence LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order to Starlo Innovation LLC for intelligence and operational support services.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside under the General Services Administration's OASIS+ contract vehicle, sought contractor support for the Narcotics and Transnational Crime Support Center, which assists the Department of Defense and law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking, terrorism and transnationalorganized crime.
DarkStar argued that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated its proposal, relied on unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to properly consider price in its best-value tradeoff decision.
GAO rejected those claims, finding the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The watchdog concluded the Air Force reasonably assigned DarkStar's proposal a "good" rating under the technical approach and mission understanding factor because evaluators found its proposal demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirements but lacked the deeper, partner-focused understanding of law enforcement organizations sought by the solicitation. That shortcoming led evaluators to identify a low-to-moderate performance risk stemming from the potential need for additional government oversight.
GAO also dismissed DarkStar's claim that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria. The decision found that the solicitation explicitly required offerors to demonstrate detailed knowledge of how law enforcement agencies' missions, structures and cultures interact with the Department of Defense. As a result, the agency's assessment of DarkStar's proposal as insufficiently partner-centric was logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria.
Finally, GAO rejected DarkStar's argument that the Air Force ignored price in selecting the higher-priced proposal from Starlo. DarkStar proposed a price of about $73 million, while Starlo's proposal totaled roughly $80.4 million, a premium of approximately 9%.
GAO found that the Air Force documented its consideration of both technical merit and price, concluding that Starlo's superior technical proposal and lower performance risk justified the additional cost. The decision held that the best-value tradeoff was rational, adequately documented and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme.
As a result, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424306
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: June 3, 2026
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester.
Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Starlo Innovation, LLC, the intervenor.
Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Autumn Hazy, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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.
