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 Pat Williams Construction Protest Against Cerris Builders Award for Louisiana Army Project
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Pat Williams Construction LLC, Leeville, Louisiana, challenging the award of a construction contract to Cerris Builders Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, for work at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the solicitation on July 8, 2025, seeking a fixed-price contractor to renovate and repair a tactical equipment maintenance facility. The procurement called for a best-value tradeoff, considering past performance, schedule, small business participation, and price, with non-price factors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Pat Williams Construction LLC, Leeville, Louisiana, challenging the award of a construction contract to Cerris Builders Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, for work at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the solicitation on July 8, 2025, seeking a fixed-price contractor to renovate and repair a tactical equipment maintenance facility. The procurement called for a best-value tradeoff, considering past performance, schedule, small business participation, and price, with non-price factorscollectively equal in importance to cost.
Six offerors submitted proposals. During its evaluation, the agency found Pat Williams Construction's proposal unacceptable under the summary schedule factor, identifying four deficiencies related to missing required information. Specifically, evaluators determined the proposal failed to include total float calculations, omitted key activities and timelines for long lead items, lacked required ordering and delivery details, and did not address project turnover requirements.
Because the solicitation expressly warned that proposals containing deficiencies would be ineligible for award, the agency excluded Pat Williams Construction from further consideration. After evaluating the remaining proposals, the agency selected Cerris Builders as offering the best value and made the award on December 8, 2025.
In its protest, Pat Williams Construction argued that the deficiencies were merely administrative and did not justify an unacceptable rating. The company also contended that the agency should have sought clarifications to address the issues and challenged the overall best-value decision.
In a decision issued March 25, 2026, the GAO found the agency's evaluation reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's requirements. The office emphasized that offerors bear the responsibility to submit complete proposals addressing all material requirements, and failure to do so can properly result in disqualification.
The GAO rejected the argument that the omissions were minor, concluding that the missing schedule details were material because they directly affected the project's timeline and delivery. The office also found that the agency was not required to seek clarifications, noting that correcting the deficiencies would have amounted to discussions, which the solicitation did not contemplate.
Finally, because Pat Williams Construction's proposal was properly deemed unacceptable and ineligible for award, the GAO determined the firm was not an interested party to challenge the agency's best-value tradeoff decision.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424168
Publicly Released on: March 26, 2026 Published: March 25, 2026
Jason Williams for the protester.
Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq., Gordon Rees Scully & Mansukhani, LLP, for Cerris Builders, Inc., the intervenor.
Deborah L. Collins, Esq., and Elliott A. Stanley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies KBR Wyle Services Protest of NASA COSMOS Contract Award to Ascend Aerospace
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by KBR Wyle Services LLC, Fulton, Maryland, challenging the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's award of a major spaceflight operations contract to Ascend Aerospace & Technology LLC, a small business joint venture based in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The contract, known as the Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems (COSMOS), supports critical mission systems integration and human spaceflight operations. Valued at up to $1.8 billion, it represents a follow-on to NASA's existing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by KBR Wyle Services LLC, Fulton, Maryland, challenging the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's award of a major spaceflight operations contract to Ascend Aerospace & Technology LLC, a small business joint venture based in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The contract, known as the Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems (COSMOS), supports critical mission systems integration and human spaceflight operations. Valued at up to $1.8 billion, it represents a follow-on to NASA's existingmission operations work and was awarded after a best-value competition considering mission suitability, past performance, and cost.
KBR, the incumbent contractor, argued that NASA improperly evaluated proposals and should have rejected ASCEND's offer for failing to include information on small disadvantaged business participation. The protester also challenged multiple aspects of the agency's technical and past performance evaluations.
GAO rejected these arguments, finding that NASA acted reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation. The decision noted that ASCEND, as a small business joint venture, was not required to submit a subcontracting plan, and the solicitation explicitly stated proposals would not be rejected for failing to meet small business participation goals. NASA nonetheless assessed a weakness in ASCEND's proposal for not including such information, which GAO found appropriate.
The watchdog also upheld NASA's evaluation of mission suitability, concluding that the agency reasonably assessed strengths and weaknesses across proposals and applied its scoring methodology consistently. GAO emphasized that disagreements with an agency's judgment do not establish that an evaluation was improper.
On past performance, GAO found no fault with NASA's decision to assign both KBR and ASCEND ratings of "high confidence." While KBR pointed to its role as incumbent, GAO reiterated that incumbency alone does not entitle an offeror to the highest rating. The agency reasonably considered performance quality, including a recent satisfactory rating for KBR in cost control.
Ultimately, GAO agreed with NASA's determination that ASCEND's proposal--offering strong technical merit and the lowest evaluated cost at approximately $1.49 billion--represented the best value to the government.
The protest decision, issued March 24, 2026, affirms NASA's award following corrective action and reevaluation of proposals.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423901.2
Publicly Released on: April 1, 2026 Published: March 24, 2026
Richard J.R. Raleigh, Jr., Esq., Christopher L. Lockwood, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., and Ginny L. Gibson, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, for the protester.
Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Steven A. Neeley, Esq., Samuel W. Jack, Esq., and Bhargavi Kalaga, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the intervenor.
Jennifer L. Rawls, Esq., Cody Corley, Esq., and Delenn Cooper, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Mission Critical Project Services Protest of Christway Construction HVAC Award in Texas
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a bid protest filed by Mission Critical Project Services Inc., Aurora, Colorado, challenging the award of a contract to Christway Construction Co. LLC, Houston, Texas, for heating, ventilation and air conditioning work at Fort Sam Houston, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
The U.S. Air Force issued the solicitation on August 14, 2025, seeking contractors to remove existing systems and install two new HVAC units. The procurement was conducted on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis and required
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a bid protest filed by Mission Critical Project Services Inc., Aurora, Colorado, challenging the award of a contract to Christway Construction Co. LLC, Houston, Texas, for heating, ventilation and air conditioning work at Fort Sam Houston, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
The U.S. Air Force issued the solicitation on August 14, 2025, seeking contractors to remove existing systems and install two new HVAC units. The procurement was conducted on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis and requiredvendors to provide exact brand-name equipment--specifically designated Leibert systems--with precise model numbers and specifications.
Mission Critical Project Services submitted initial quotations before the agency issued a final amendment that changed key technical requirements, including the required air handler model number. The company later submitted a revised quotation, but it was received two minutes after the deadline and rejected as late.
Although the Air Force did not consider the late submission, it evaluated the firm's earlier quotations against the final amended requirements and found them technically unacceptable. The agency determined that the company failed to quote the required model number and did not provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the specified brand-name equipment.
The contract was ultimately awarded to Christway Construction after the agency concluded the firm submitted the lowest-priced quotation meeting all technical requirements.
In its protest, Mission Critical Project Services argued that its quotations met the amended requirements and that the agency's evaluation and award decision were unreasonable.
In a decision dated March 26, 2026, the GAO found the Air Force's evaluation reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The office emphasized that vendors must clearly demonstrate compliance with material requirements, including exact brand-name specifications when required. Because the protester quoted a different model number than the one specified in the final solicitation, the GAO concluded the agency properly found the quotations technically unacceptable.
The GAO denied this portion of the protest.
The office dismissed the remainder of the protest, ruling that Mission Critical Project Services was not an interested party to challenge the award. Since its quotation was properly rejected as technically unacceptable and its revised submission was late, the company would not have been eligible for award even if its other arguments were sustained.
The decision also noted concerns about inaccurate legal citations submitted by the protester, cautioning that future filings relying on unverified sources could lead to sanctions.
The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424081.2
Publicly Released on: March 27, 2026 Published: March 26, 2026
Ryan Franz, and Emily Franz, for the protester.
Walker J. Gray, Esq., Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Colonel Justin A. Silverman, and Jesse L. Ondera, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Mission Analytics Reconsideration Bid Over Air Force CCTV Contract Award to Wingmann
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Mission Analytics LLC, Falls Church, Virginia, seeking reconsideration of an earlier decision dismissing its protest of a U.S. Air Force contract award to Wingmann LLC, McCloud, Oklahoma.
The dispute stems from an Air Force solicitation for a closed-circuit television system issued in September 2025. The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations, resulted in an award to Wingmann, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business.
In January 2026, GAO dismissed Mission Analytics' protest, finding that
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Mission Analytics LLC, Falls Church, Virginia, seeking reconsideration of an earlier decision dismissing its protest of a U.S. Air Force contract award to Wingmann LLC, McCloud, Oklahoma.
The dispute stems from an Air Force solicitation for a closed-circuit television system issued in September 2025. The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations, resulted in an award to Wingmann, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business.
In January 2026, GAO dismissed Mission Analytics' protest, finding thatits challenges to the solicitation were untimely and that the firm was not an interested party to contest the award. Mission Analytics subsequently filed two requests for reconsideration, arguing that the prior decision contained factual and legal errors and citing newly discovered information.
GAO rejected both requests in a decision issued April 1, 2026, concluding that the company failed to meet the high standard required for reconsideration.
The watchdog explained that reconsideration is only granted when a requester demonstrates a material error of fact or law that would have changed the outcome. Mission Analytics argued that GAO misstated when it learned of the award relative to when it submitted its quotation, but GAO found this issue immaterial to its earlier ruling. The dismissal was based on the firm's failure to file a timely protest after the Air Force took adverse action on its agency-level protest, not on when it learned of the award.
Mission Analytics also contended that it should have been considered an interested party because it filed a timely agency-level protest. GAO disagreed, reiterating that a firm must demonstrate a direct economic interest in the procurement. Because Mission Analytics did not submit a timely quotation or a timely protest to GAO, it would not have been in line for award even if its protest were sustained.
The agency further dismissed the company's additional reconsideration request as untimely. Mission Analytics claimed a filing delay was caused by issues with GAO's Electronic Protest Docketing System, but GAO found the request was filed beyond the 10-day deadline and, in any event, lacked evidence that any system issue caused the late filing.
GAO emphasized that strict timeliness rules are essential to maintaining fairness and efficiency in the procurement process.
The decision leaves in place the Air Force's award to Wingmann and reaffirms GAO's earlier dismissal of Mission Analytics' protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423980.2%2Cb-423980.4
Publicly Released on: April 2, 2026 Published: April 1, 2026
Michael Winters for the requester.
Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Major Edward S. Coleman, Isabelle Cutting, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Samantha S. Lee, Esq., Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Harper Construction Protest of Clark Construction Award for Camp Pendleton Housing Repairs
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Harper Construction Co. Inc., San Diego, California, challenging a U.S. Navy task order awarded to Clark Construction Group - California LP, Irvine, California, for repairs to military housing at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
The U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command issued the solicitation on July 1, 2025, seeking a fixed-price contractor to repair five bachelor enlisted quarters buildings, including upgrades to meet new housing standards. The procurement used a lowest-priced, technically
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Harper Construction Co. Inc., San Diego, California, challenging a U.S. Navy task order awarded to Clark Construction Group - California LP, Irvine, California, for repairs to military housing at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
The U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command issued the solicitation on July 1, 2025, seeking a fixed-price contractor to repair five bachelor enlisted quarters buildings, including upgrades to meet new housing standards. The procurement used a lowest-priced, technicallyacceptable evaluation method, under which only proposals meeting technical requirements could be considered for award.
Harper submitted the lowest-priced proposal, but the Navy found its technical solution unacceptable. Evaluators concluded that Harper's conceptual designs failed to meet minimum space requirements for housing units, particularly the required net square footage for key areas such as kitchenettes and living spaces. As a result, the agency determined the proposal did not comply with material solicitation requirements and was ineligible for award.
The task order was issued to Clark Construction, whose evaluated price for the base work was approximately $68.4 million.
Harper protested, arguing that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its proposal and misinterpreted the solicitation's design requirements. The company contended that its conceptual drawings should not have been strictly evaluated for compliance and that the solicitation allowed flexibility in meeting minimum space standards for renovation projects.
In its March 18, 2026 decision, the GAO found the Navy's evaluation reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The office emphasized that even conceptual designs must demonstrate compliance with minimum requirements when they are used as part of the technical evaluation.
The GAO also rejected Harper's interpretation of the space requirements, noting that the solicitation--through amendments and responses to vendor questions--clearly established minimum size standards, including a reduced but still binding minimum for kitchenettes. To the extent Harper believed there was a conflict in the requirements, the GAO determined that any such ambiguity was apparent and should have been challenged before proposals were due.
Because Harper's proposal failed to meet a material requirement, the GAO concluded the Navy reasonably found it technically unacceptable. The office further noted that any other alleged evaluation errors would not have changed the outcome, since the proposal remained ineligible for award.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-419947.3
Publicly Released on: March 26, 2026 Published: March 18, 2026
Dirk Haire, Esq., Jessica Haire, Esq., A. Michelle West, Esq., Michael J. Brewer, Esq., and Isabella S. Capanna, Esq., Burr & Forman LLP, for the protester.
Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., and William B. O'Reilly, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Clark Construction Group - California LP, the intervenor.
Kristopher M. Cronin, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Bowhead Protest Over Army Support Services Task Order Award to Akima
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Bowhead Logistics Management LLC, Springfield, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army Materiel Command's decision to award a task order to Akima Facilities Operations LLC, Herndon, Virginia.
The dispute centered on a contract for support services at the Letterkenny Army Depot. Bowhead argued that the Army unreasonably evaluated proposals and made a flawed best-value determination.
According to the decision, the Army issued the solicitation in September 2025 as a small business
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Bowhead Logistics Management LLC, Springfield, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army Materiel Command's decision to award a task order to Akima Facilities Operations LLC, Herndon, Virginia.
The dispute centered on a contract for support services at the Letterkenny Army Depot. Bowhead argued that the Army unreasonably evaluated proposals and made a flawed best-value determination.
According to the decision, the Army issued the solicitation in September 2025 as a small businessset-aside and received proposals from Bowhead and Akima. The agency rated Akima's proposal higher technically--receiving a "good" rating compared to Bowhead's "marginal"--while also offering a lower price, approximately $184.9 million versus Bowhead's $187.4 million. Both firms received "substantial confidence" ratings for past performance.
The GAO found that the Army's evaluation of Bowhead's proposal was largely reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. In particular, the watchdog agreed with the agency's assessment of weaknesses in Bowhead's management plan, including unclear approaches to staffing surge requirements, insufficient detail on verifying employee qualifications, and ambiguity in balancing seniority-based and merit-based employment decisions.
The decision also rejected Bowhead's claims of unequal treatment, concluding that differences in ratings between the two proposals were driven by meaningful distinctions in the level of detail and approach described.
While the GAO identified one flaw in the Army's evaluation--an improperly assigned strength in Akima's proposal--it determined that the error did not prejudice Bowhead's chances of award. The ruling emphasized that Bowhead's proposal was rated "marginal" overall, making it ineligible for award under the solicitation's requirement for at least an "acceptable" technical rating.
Because of this, the GAO dismissed several additional protest arguments, finding that Bowhead was not an interested party to pursue them since it would not be next in line for award even if those claims succeeded.
Ultimately, the GAO concluded that the Army reasonably selected Akima's higher-rated, lower-priced proposal as representing the best value to the government.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424143%2Cb-424143.2
Publicly Released on: March 31, 2026 Published: March 17, 2026
Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Hillary J. Freund., Esq., and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester.
Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Alfred M. Wurglitz, Esq., Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., and Samara A. Rahman, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Facilities Operations, the intervenor.
Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Travis Drost, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Enviremedial Services Protest Denied Over Army Contract Award to BryMak & Associates
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Enviremedial Services Inc., Oceanside, California, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to BryMak & Associates Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee, for facilities maintenance services across Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The dispute arose after the Army selected BryMak for a fixed-price contract covering preventative maintenance and repair work at 18 Army Reserve sites. Enviremedial Services argued that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and made an unreasonable
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Enviremedial Services Inc., Oceanside, California, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to BryMak & Associates Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee, for facilities maintenance services across Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The dispute arose after the Army selected BryMak for a fixed-price contract covering preventative maintenance and repair work at 18 Army Reserve sites. Enviremedial Services argued that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and made an unreasonablebest-value decision.
The GAO rejected those claims, finding that the Corps of Engineers conducted a reasonable and well-documented evaluation consistent with the solicitation. While both companies received the same "substantial confidence" rating for past performance, the agency identified key distinctions during its tradeoff analysis.
Enviremedial submitted more extensive and highly rated past performance references overall. However, the agency noted that one of its contracts included three marginal performance ratings, which raised concerns about potential risk. In contrast, BryMak's record showed no ratings below satisfactory, leading the agency to view its performance risk as lower.
The GAO concluded that it was reasonable for the agency to weigh those risks in its decision, even though Enviremedial had a slight technical advantage. Ultimately, the Corps determined that BryMak's lower price--approximately 2.1 percent less--outweighed the marginal benefits offered by Enviremedial's proposal.
The decision also dismissed part of Enviremedial's protest as untimely. The company attempted to reassert an argument about the consideration of a subcontractor's past performance that had already been denied in an earlier protest. GAO found that Enviremedial failed to seek reconsideration within the required timeframe and could not relitigate the issue.
In its ruling, GAO emphasized that agencies have broad discretion in evaluating past performance and making best-value tradeoffs, so long as their judgments are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Here, the record showed that the Corps carefully considered the relative merits and risks of both proposals before selecting BryMak.
As a result, the protest was denied in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423552.3
Publicly Released on: March 31, 2026 Published: March 24, 2026
Anuj Vohra, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester.
Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Jules L. Szanton, Esq., and Timothy A. Wieroniey, Esq, Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, PC, for BryMak & Associates, Inc., the intervenor.
Michael P. Wilt, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Enviremedial Services Protest Denied Over Army Contract Award to BryMak & Associates
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Enviremedial Services Inc., Oceanside, California, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to BryMak & Associates Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee, for facilities maintenance services across Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The dispute arose after the Army selected BryMak for a fixed-price contract covering preventative maintenance and repair work at 18 Army Reserve sites. Enviremedial Services argued that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and made an unreasonable
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Enviremedial Services Inc., Oceanside, California, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to BryMak & Associates Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee, for facilities maintenance services across Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The dispute arose after the Army selected BryMak for a fixed-price contract covering preventative maintenance and repair work at 18 Army Reserve sites. Enviremedial Services argued that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and made an unreasonablebest-value decision.
The GAO rejected those claims, finding that the Corps of Engineers conducted a reasonable and well-documented evaluation consistent with the solicitation. While both companies received the same "substantial confidence" rating for past performance, the agency identified key distinctions during its tradeoff analysis.
Enviremedial submitted more extensive and highly rated past performance references overall. However, the agency noted that one of its contracts included three marginal performance ratings, which raised concerns about potential risk. In contrast, BryMak's record showed no ratings below satisfactory, leading the agency to view its performance risk as lower.
The GAO concluded that it was reasonable for the agency to weigh those risks in its decision, even though Enviremedial had a slight technical advantage. Ultimately, the Corps determined that BryMak's lower price--approximately 2.1 percent less--outweighed the marginal benefits offered by Enviremedial's proposal.
The decision also dismissed part of Enviremedial's protest as untimely. The company attempted to reassert an argument about the consideration of a subcontractor's past performance that had already been denied in an earlier protest. GAO found that Enviremedial failed to seek reconsideration within the required timeframe and could not relitigate the issue.
In its ruling, GAO emphasized that agencies have broad discretion in evaluating past performance and making best-value tradeoffs, so long as their judgments are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Here, the record showed that the Corps carefully considered the relative merits and risks of both proposals before selecting BryMak.
As a result, the protest was denied in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423552.3
Publicly Released on: March 31, 2026 Published: March 24, 2026
Anuj Vohra, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester.
Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Jules L. Szanton, Esq., and Timothy A. Wieroniey, Esq, Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, PC, for BryMak & Associates, Inc., the intervenor.
Michael P. Wilt, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DSC-EMI II Protest Over Navy Support Services Contract Denied in Favor of FL GCR J.V.
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DSC-EMI II LLC, Dunn, North Carolina, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a support services contract to FL GCR J.V. LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for work at the U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia.
The dispute centered on the Navy's evaluation of technical proposals under a solicitation issued in November 2024 for a multi-function facilities support contract. The procurement, set aside for small businesses, sought a contractor to provide services under a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by DSC-EMI II LLC, Dunn, North Carolina, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a support services contract to FL GCR J.V. LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for work at the U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia.
The dispute centered on the Navy's evaluation of technical proposals under a solicitation issued in November 2024 for a multi-function facilities support contract. The procurement, set aside for small businesses, sought a contractor to provide services under a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,indefinite-quantity arrangement.
DSC-EMI argued that the Navy unreasonably evaluated proposals, specifically claiming the agency failed to credit its proposal with several strengths under the technical approach factor. These included its use of named and vetted personnel, availability of surge support staff, faster emergency response times, and additional operational resources. The protester also contended that the Navy should have assessed a deficiency in FL GCR's proposal, particularly in its organizational chart.
GAO rejected these arguments, finding that the Navy's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's criteria. The decision emphasized that agencies have broad discretion in determining whether aspects of a proposal exceed requirements enough to warrant strengths. In this case, GAO agreed with the Navy that many of DSC-EMI's cited features either met, but did not exceed, the solicitation's requirements or did not provide a meaningful advantage to the government.
For example, the Navy concluded that identifying personnel and subcontractors in advance did not guarantee improved performance and therefore did not justify a strength. Similarly, the agency found that proposed faster response times did not necessarily provide operational benefit, given the need to prioritize multiple simultaneous service requests.
GAO also dismissed the claim that FL GCR's proposal should have been downgraded. The record showed that the awardee's organizational chart and staffing approach were consistent with the solicitation requirements and aligned with its proposed labor hours.
In the final evaluation, DSC-EMI received higher technical ratings but proposed a price approximately 27 percent higher than FL GCR. The Navy determined that the lower-priced, technically acceptable proposal from FL GCR represented the best value.
GAO concluded that the protester's arguments largely reflected disagreement with the agency's judgment rather than evidence of evaluation errors, and denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO:
Publicly Released on: April 2, 2026 Published: March 30, 2026
J. Alex Ward, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester.
J. Chris White, Esq., Clark Hill, PLC, for FL GCR JV, LLC, the intervenor.
Javier E. Gonzalez, Esq., and J. Alexandra Fitzmaurice, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
