Featured Stories
GAO Upholds U.S. Transportation Command Award to Trillion Technology Solutions, Denying InterImage Protest
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by InterImage Inc., Arlington, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to Trillion Technology Solutions Inc., Reston, Virginia, for functional management support services for the U.S. Transportation Command.
The task order, issued under Request for Quotations No. HTC71125QE151, covers support for USTRANSCOM's Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) and Transportation Visualizer (TransViz), which are used to analyze and coordinate military transportation operations. The procurement was conducted
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by InterImage Inc., Arlington, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to Trillion Technology Solutions Inc., Reston, Virginia, for functional management support services for the U.S. Transportation Command.
The task order, issued under Request for Quotations No. HTC71125QE151, covers support for USTRANSCOM's Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) and Transportation Visualizer (TransViz), which are used to analyze and coordinate military transportation operations. The procurement was conductedunder the Federal Supply Schedule on a best-value tradeoff basis, with technical capability and past performance considered more important than price.
InterImage argued that USTRANSCOM improperly credited Trillion's experience developing the next-generation Joint Planning and Execution Services (JPES) system, asserting that JPES experience was not identified in the solicitation as an evaluation advantage. The protester also contended that the agency's best-value determination improperly favored Trillion despite InterImage's extensive experience supporting the legacy JOPES system.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that the agency reasonably concluded Trillion's role in developing JPES demonstrated a unique and comprehensive understanding of the underlying JOPES architecture and related systems. The decision noted that Trillion's quotation detailed its use of customized scripts for synchronizing JOPES databases, diagnosing system discrepancies, and supporting functional analysis, providing concrete evidence of its technical expertise consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria.
GAO also upheld the best-value tradeoff. The agency determined that Trillion offered technical advantages, including developer-level insight into JOPES and a staffing approach that retained the entire incumbent workforce, ensuring operational continuity. USTRANSCOM further found Trillion's past performance modernizing JPES involved greater technical complexity than InterImage's experience maintaining legacy systems.
Although Trillion's evaluated price was approximately 22 percent higher than InterImage's, the source selection authority concluded the additional technical benefits justified the premium. GAO found that the agency reasonably compared the competing quotations and documented why Trillion's superior technical approach and more complex past performance outweighed the price difference.
Finding the evaluation and source selection consistent with the solicitation and procurement regulations, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424347%2Cb-424347.2
Publicly Released on: June 26, 2026 Published: June 15, 2026
Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester.
Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq. Potomac Law Group, for Trillion Trchnology Solutions, Inc., the intervenor.
Erika L. Retta Whelan, Esq., Walker J. Gray, Esq., Robert Depke, Esq., and Aeric Bauman, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Highlight Technologies Protest of FedTec Contract Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Highlight Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to FedTec LLC, Reston, Virginia, for enterprise data analytics shared services operations and maintenance support for the General Services Administration Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations issued in August 2025, sought a best-value contractor to provide professional support services for the agency's enterprise data analytics portfolio. The contract includes a one-year
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Highlight Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging the award of a task order to FedTec LLC, Reston, Virginia, for enterprise data analytics shared services operations and maintenance support for the General Services Administration Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The procurement, conducted under a request for quotations issued in August 2025, sought a best-value contractor to provide professional support services for the agency's enterprise data analytics portfolio. The contract includes a one-yearbase period, four one-year option periods, and an optional six-month extension.
Following corrective action after an earlier protest, the General Services Administration reevaluated quotations from Highlight and FedTec. Highlight received higher technical ratings, earning "Excellent" in technical capability, staffing, and past performance, while FedTec received "Good" ratings across those categories. However, FedTec submitted a significantly lower evaluated price of about $33.9 million, compared with Highlight's roughly $42.9 million.
The source selection authority concluded that Highlight's technical advantages did not justify paying an additional $8.95 million, selecting FedTec as offering the best overall value.
Highlight argued that the agency improperly evaluated pricing after adding a $2 million annual ceiling for optional labor line items that had not been expressly included in the solicitation's pricing schedule. The company contended this change misled it into submitting a higher-priced quotation.
GAO acknowledged that the agency's addition of the ceiling price during evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation's language. However, the watchdog found Highlight failed to demonstrate it suffered competitive prejudice or that it would have had a substantial chance of winning the award absent the error. GAO concluded that all vendors had received the same information and were free to develop their own pricing strategies based on business judgment.
The decision also rejected Highlight's challenge to the best-value tradeoff, finding the agency reasonably documented why FedTec's lower-priced proposal represented the better value despite its lower technical ratings.
Finally, GAO dismissed Highlight's allegation that FedTec violated the Procurement Integrity Act. The decision found the protester's claims--that FedTec contacted Highlight employees before award while representing itself as the likely winner--did not credibly establish that any government official improperly disclosed protected procurement information or otherwise violated federal law.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424060.2
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: May 22, 2026
C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Cash W. Carter, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester.
Taylor R. Holt, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for FedTec, LLC, the intervenor.
Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses BCCG JV Protest Over $641 Million Border Barrier Task Order Award to Cochrane USA
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office dismissed a protest by BCCG JV, Montgomery, Alabama, challenging the Customs and Border Protection's issuance of a sole-source task order valued at up to $641.3 million to Cochrane USA Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia, for the design and construction of waterborne barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The protest challenged the Department of Homeland Security's decision to award the task order without competition under a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. BCCG argued that the agency improperly relied on a
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office dismissed a protest by BCCG JV, Montgomery, Alabama, challenging the Customs and Border Protection's issuance of a sole-source task order valued at up to $641.3 million to Cochrane USA Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia, for the design and construction of waterborne barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The protest challenged the Department of Homeland Security's decision to award the task order without competition under a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. BCCG argued that the agency improperly relied on awaiver issued under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), contending that the waiver did not apply to waterborne barriers and that the award violated federal procurement rules requiring fair opportunity among contract holders.
GAO dismissed those claims, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the task order was issued pursuant to an IIRIRA waiver published by the Secretary of Homeland Security in October 2025. Under the statute, exclusive jurisdiction over challenges arising from actions taken under such waivers rests with U.S. district courts, not GAO.
The decision noted that the waiver expressly exempted the procurement from numerous contracting statutes and regulations, including fair opportunity requirements for task orders under multiple-award contracts. GAO also found that the waiver's reference to "physical barriers" was broad enough to encompass waterborne barriers, rejecting BCCG's argument that the waiver applied only to land-based projects.
BCCG also alleged that the award created an improper conflict of interest because Cochrane employed a former CBP acquisition official who had previously overseen border barrier projects. The protester argued that the former official likely had access to nonpublic information that could have benefited Cochrane.
GAO dismissed that allegation as legally and factually insufficient. The decision found that BCCG offered only speculation, not the "hard facts" required to establish an actual or potential conflict of interest. It also noted that because the task order was awarded on a sole-source basis, BCCG failed to explain how any nonpublic information could have provided a competitive advantage.
The protest additionally suggested that the former official may have violated federal post-government employment restrictions. GAO declined to consider that claim, explaining that enforcement of criminal conflict-of-interest statutes falls within the jurisdiction of the procuring agency and the Department of Justice, not GAO.
As a result, GAO dismissed the protest in its entirety.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424377
Publicly Released on: June 26, 2026 Published: June 22, 2026
Robert J. Symon, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Erik M. Coon, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester.
Kimberly L. Cohen, Esq., and Adam Struble, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.
Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Servexo Protective Services Protest Over USDA Security Guard Contract Award to Valletta Industries
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Servexo Protective Services Inc., Gardena, California, challenging the award of a security guard services task order to Valletta Industries, Covington, Louisiana, under a solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The procurement sought security guard services for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas, under a hybrid fixed-price and labor-hour task order with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The competition was conducted on a lowest-price,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Servexo Protective Services Inc., Gardena, California, challenging the award of a security guard services task order to Valletta Industries, Covington, Louisiana, under a solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The procurement sought security guard services for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas, under a hybrid fixed-price and labor-hour task order with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The competition was conducted on a lowest-price,technically acceptable basis among small businesses holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contracts.
Servexo, the lowest-priced vendor, argued that USDA unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable by improperly counting multiple marginal performance ratings from related task orders as separate incidents under the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System.
GAO rejected the argument, finding that the agency's evaluation was consistent with the solicitation's terms.
The solicitation required USDA to review vendors' performance ratings in the quality, management and schedule categories. It also stated that a quotation would be rated unacceptable if more than 10 percent of the ratings in any category were marginal or unsatisfactory.
During its review, USDA found that Servexo had received 74 schedule ratings across task orders issued under nine contracts since 2018. Of those ratings, 17--or approximately 22 percent--were rated marginal, exceeding the solicitation's 10 percent threshold. As a result, the agency determined that Servexo's quotation was technically unacceptable and eliminated it from further consideration before awarding the task order to Valletta Industries.
Servexo contended that 15 of the marginal ratings stemmed from task orders issued under a single overarching contract for security services at multiple Department of Labor Job Corps centers and therefore should have been treated as a single performance issue rather than 15 separate ratings.
GAO disagreed, concluding that nothing in the solicitation required the agency to consolidate ratings from related task orders or prohibited it from evaluating each individual rating reflected in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System. The watchdog also noted that Servexo did not dispute the accuracy of the ratings themselves.
Finding the evaluation reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation, GAO denied the protest, allowing the award to Valletta Industries to stand.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424349%2Cb-424349.2
Publicly Released on: June 9, 2026 Published: Jun 8, 2026
Kaycilyn Cate Abrera for the protester.
Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Samuel Van Kopp, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for Valletta Industries, the intervenor.
Adam Humphries, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 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 Octave Technologies Protest Over CMS Award to C-HIT
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Octave Technologies Corp., Baltimore, Maryland, challenging the award of a task order to Chags Health Information Technology LLC dba C-HIT, Columbia, Maryland, for application programming interface gateway support services for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The task order, issued under the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Schedule, covers commercial services supporting CMS's API gateway through a hybrid firm-fixed-price and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest filed by Octave Technologies Corp., Baltimore, Maryland, challenging the award of a task order to Chags Health Information Technology LLC dba C-HIT, Columbia, Maryland, for application programming interface gateway support services for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The task order, issued under the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Schedule, covers commercial services supporting CMS's API gateway through a hybrid firm-fixed-price andtime-and-materials contract with a one-year base period and four option years.
Octave argued that CMS improperly evaluated vendors' quotations, treated offerors unequally, conducted discussions only with C-HIT, and made an unreasonable best-value determination.
GAO rejected all of the protester's arguments, finding that the agency's evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and supported by the record.
According to the decision, CMS reasonably assigned Octave lower confidence ratings after identifying several weaknesses in its proposal. The agency found inaccuracies in the corporate experience submitted for a contractor teaming arrangement partner, concerns with Octave's proposed application rationalization approach, and shortcomings in its oral presentation, including what evaluators viewed as an overreliance on a technique that could undermine the agency's objective of expanding data access.
GAO also dismissed Octave's claims of disparate treatment, concluding that the differences in the evaluations reflected meaningful differences between the competing proposals rather than unequal treatment. In contrast to Octave's proposal, C-HIT's quotation received high confidence ratings under all three non-price evaluation factors and contained no negative findings.
Although C-HIT's proposed price of approximately $33.66 million exceeded Octave's price of about $25.87 million, GAO agreed that the awardee's superior technical proposal justified the additional cost. The contracting officer reasonably concluded that C-HIT's quotation represented the best value to the government, the decision said.
GAO further upheld CMS's decision to conduct discussions only with C-HIT after determining it was the apparent best-suited vendor. The solicitation expressly permitted the agency to limit exchanges to the vendor most likely to receive the award, and GAO found that CMS acted in accordance with the solicitation and applicable procurement rules.
The protest was denied, leaving the award to C-HIT in place.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424253%2Cb-424253.4
Publicly Released on: June 8, 2026 Published: May 15, 2026
Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Morgan E. Kurst, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester.
J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and John. R. Prairie, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Chags Health Information Technology LLC, the intervenor.
Brandon Dell'Aglio, Esq., and William Shim, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Altus Technology Solutions Protest Against Air Force Contract Award to VetPride-EMI Denied
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Altus Technology Solutions, Hanover, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a contract for operations, maintenance and support services at primary training ranges to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside, sought a fixed-price contract with a nine-month base period and four one-year option periods. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, with program management weighted significantly more heavily than price.
Altus
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Altus Technology Solutions, Hanover, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a contract for operations, maintenance and support services at primary training ranges to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina.
The procurement, issued as a small business set-aside, sought a fixed-price contract with a nine-month base period and four one-year option periods. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, with program management weighted significantly more heavily than price.
Altusreceived a "Good" rating under the program management factor and proposed a price of about $106.8 million. VetPride-EMI received an "Acceptable" rating but submitted the lower-priced proposal at approximately $91.1 million. The Air Force determined that VetPride-EMI's proposal represented the best value because Altus's technical advantages did not justify its roughly 17 percent price premium.
GAO rejected Altus's claims that the Air Force improperly evaluated proposals under the program management factor. Altus argued that the agency overlooked weaknesses in VetPride-EMI's quality control approach and failed to recognize additional strengths in Altus's proposal, including its use of incumbent personnel. GAO found that the Air Force reasonably evaluated both proposals in accordance with the solicitation and that Altus's arguments largely reflected disagreement with the agency's judgment rather than evidence of an unreasonable evaluation.
The watchdog also denied Altus's challenge to the Air Force's price evaluation. Altus contended that VetPride-EMI's labor rates and equipment pricing were inconsistent with solicitation requirements. GAO concluded that the solicitation required the agency to evaluate only each offeror's total overall evaluated price rather than underlying labor rates or pricing details. Because the procurement did not call for a price realism analysis, the Air Force was not required to examine those cost breakdowns.
Finally, GAO rejected Altus's argument that VetPride-EMI was ineligible for award because of alleged errors in its System for Award Management registration. The decision found that the joint venture maintained an active SAM registration throughout the procurement and that any inaccuracies concerning ownership information or mentor-protege representations were, at most, minor informalities that did not invalidate the award or prejudice other offerors.
As a result, GAO denied the protest in its entirety, allowing the Air Force's contract award to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions to stand.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424316%2Cb-424316.2
Publicly Released on: June 18, 2026 Published: June 12, 2026
Craig A. Holman, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Adrienne Jackson, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester.
J. Alex Ward, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Jillian I. Stern, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Michael J. Farr, Esq., W. Jacob Worthan, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 InnoVet Protest, Upholding Elimination From NASA Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by InnoVet Technologies LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging its elimination from a major NASA procurement for government-wide information technology products and services.
The protest involved request for proposals (No. 80TECH24R0001) for the sixth generation of NASA's Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity program with a maximum ordering value of $20 billion over a 10-year ordering period.
InnoVet submitted proposals for Categories
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest by InnoVet Technologies LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging its elimination from a major NASA procurement for government-wide information technology products and services.
The protest involved request for proposals (No. 80TECH24R0001) for the sixth generation of NASA's Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity program with a maximum ordering value of $20 billion over a 10-year ordering period.
InnoVet submitted proposals for CategoriesB and C, covering enterprise-wide IT services and mission-based IT services. NASA eliminated both proposals after determining they failed to provide a required management approach narrative describing the company's corporate cybersecurity supply chain risk management (C-SCRM) processes, IT security practices for contractor-acquired property, and how it remains current on supply chain security and cybersecurity standards.
The company argued that other portions of its proposals--including its completed C-SCRM attestation form and technical approach narrative--demonstrated its cybersecurity capabilities and should have satisfied the solicitation's requirements despite the absence of a separate management approach narrative.
GAO disagreed, finding that the solicitation explicitly required a dedicated narrative addressing the offeror's own corporate cybersecurity management processes. The decision noted that the attestation form merely documented compliance with specified security controls and did not explain the company's corporate risk management processes, participation in supply chain security activities, or methods for staying current on cybersecurity practices. Likewise, the technical approach focused on how InnoVet would provide cybersecurity services to NASA rather than how it manages its own corporate cybersecurity risks.
The decision emphasized that the solicitation required offerors to respond to every factor, subfactor, and required element of the mission suitability volume, warning that failure to do so would render a proposal ineligible for award. Because InnoVet omitted the required management approach narrative and failed to demonstrate that the missing information appeared elsewhere in its proposals, NASA reasonably assigned both proposals a "no confidence" rating and excluded them from further consideration.
GAO concluded that offerors bear the responsibility for submitting proposals containing all required information and found NASA's evaluation and elimination of InnoVet's proposals to be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. As a result, the protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423306.20
Publicly Released on: June 22, 2026 Published: June 16, 2026
Darrell Hernandez 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 AVMAC Protest Over Marine Corps Aircraft Maintenance Task Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by AVMAC LLC, Chesapeake, Virginia, challenging the General Services Administration's award of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI) Inc., Rockville, Maryland, for maintenance services supporting the U.S. Marine Corps' MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft.
The task order, issued under GSA's ASTRO multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, was awarded on a best-value basis, with non-price factors significantly more important than price. However, after evaluating proposals, the agency
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by AVMAC LLC, Chesapeake, Virginia, challenging the General Services Administration's award of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI) Inc., Rockville, Maryland, for maintenance services supporting the U.S. Marine Corps' MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft.
The task order, issued under GSA's ASTRO multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, was awarded on a best-value basis, with non-price factors significantly more important than price. However, after evaluating proposals, the agencyconcluded that the competing offers provided substantially similar technical value, making price the deciding factor. STI submitted the lowest evaluated price at approximately $31.4 million, while AVMAC's proposal was priced at about $35.7 million.
AVMAC argued that GSA improperly evaluated proposals, unfairly conducted discussions solely with STI during corrective action, and effectively converted the procurement into a lowest-priced technically acceptable competition rather than performing a proper best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding that the agency reasonably evaluated AVMAC's proposal and acted within its discretion. Although AVMAC received several strengths and no weaknesses, GAO said agencies are not required to assign the highest possible confidence ratings simply because a proposal lacks deficiencies. The record showed GSA reasonably concluded that some aspects of AVMAC's proposal merely met, rather than exceeded, solicitation requirements.
GAO also upheld the agency's corporate experience evaluation. AVMAC claimed GSA improperly favored tiltrotor aircraft experience, but GAO found the solicitation explicitly indicated that experience maintaining tiltrotor aircraft would be considered more relevant than other aircraft types. As a result, GSA reasonably distinguished between AVMAC's MV-22 maintenance experience and its experience maintaining fixed-wing aircraft.
The watchdog further found that GSA properly limited corrective-action discussions to STI. GAO concluded STI had previously not received meaningful discussions regarding an undiscovered proposal deficiency, while AVMAC had already been afforded meaningful discussions. Allowing STI to correct only that issue merely placed it in the same competitive position as other offerors.
Finally, GAO determined the agency conducted a valid best-value tradeoff. Although the source selection document stated that "no tradeoff was necessary," the contemporaneous record demonstrated that GSA compared the strengths, risks, and prices of competing proposals before concluding that AVMAC's limited technical advantages did not justify paying roughly a 12 percent price premium over lower-priced competitors.
GAO also dismissed AVMAC's challenges to STI's evaluation, finding the company was not an interested party because two lower-priced offerors would have ranked ahead of AVMAC even if STI had been eliminated from consideration.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424201.3%2Cb-424201.4
Publicly Released on: June 22, 2026 Published: June 15, 2026
J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester.
Andrew Sinn, Esq., and Jarrett Cook, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
FedWriters Protest Over National Science Foundation Communications BPA Dismissed by GAO
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a protest by FedWriters Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging a National Science Foundation solicitation for a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement covering comprehensive communications support services.
The procurement, valued at an estimated $62.6 million, seeks multiple BPA holders to provide communications services across six functional areas, including digital communications, writing, event support, video and audio production, administrative support, and communications metrics. The solicitation was issued as a woman-owned
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a protest by FedWriters Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, challenging a National Science Foundation solicitation for a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement covering comprehensive communications support services.
The procurement, valued at an estimated $62.6 million, seeks multiple BPA holders to provide communications services across six functional areas, including digital communications, writing, event support, video and audio production, administrative support, and communications metrics. The solicitation was issued as a woman-ownedsmall business set-aside through the General Services Administration eBuy system.
FedWriters argued that NSF improperly consolidated work previously performed under seven separate contract vehicles without demonstrating that the benefits of consolidation outweighed alternative contracting approaches, as required by section 7.107-2 of the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO).
GAO dismissed the protest, finding that the cited consolidation requirements do not apply to BPAs. The decision explained that the plain language of the RFO provision covers solicitations for contracts and certain orders, but not BPAs. GAO noted that its earlier decisions had consistently reached the same conclusion because BPAs are not considered contracts under the applicable acquisition regulations.
The decision acknowledged that the U.S. Small Business Administration amended its regulations in 2023 to apply consolidation requirements to BPAs. However, GAO found that FedWriters did not raise arguments based on those SBA regulations until supplemental briefing, more than 50 days after filing its initial protest. Because the arguments could have been presented earlier, GAO dismissed them as an untimely piecemeal presentation of protest grounds.
GAO also rejected FedWriters's later argument that the consolidation rules should apply because the solicitation contemplated issuing six call orders simultaneously with the BPAs. The office found that the protest had challenged only the BPA-level consolidation analysis, not the consolidation of individual call orders, making the new argument untimely.
Although NSF prepared a detailed consolidation justification during corrective action following an earlier protest, GAO ruled that the agency's voluntary preparation of such a memorandum did not create a legal obligation to comply with RFO section 7.107-2 where the regulation itself did not apply.
As a result, GAO dismissed the protest in its entirety, leaving NSF's procurement for the communications support BPA to proceed.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424376
Publicly Released on: June 25, 2026 Published: June 23, 2026
Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., Potomac Law Group, for the protester.
John Cho, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, 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.
