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 A.I. Solutions Protest Over NASA Wallops Flight Facility Contract Award to ARES
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by A.I. Solutions Inc., Lanham, Maryland, challenging NASA's award of a major operations and maintenance contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., McLean, Virginia, for work at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island.
The procurement, issued by NASA sought support services for the Wallops Range Contract, including launch ground operations, engineering, command and control, information technology, maintenance and sustainment services. The contract carried a maximum ordering value of about $253.8 million and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by A.I. Solutions Inc., Lanham, Maryland, challenging NASA's award of a major operations and maintenance contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., McLean, Virginia, for work at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island.
The procurement, issued by NASA sought support services for the Wallops Range Contract, including launch ground operations, engineering, command and control, information technology, maintenance and sustainment services. The contract carried a maximum ordering value of about $253.8 million andincluded a one-year base period with four option years.
a.i. solutions argued that NASA should have rejected ARES's proposal because the company allegedly failed to disclose a potential organizational conflict of interest tied to a separate NASA contract known as Safety and Mission Assurance Services III. The protester also claimed NASA conducted improper unequal discussions by permitting ARES to revise its OCI plan after award and alleged the agency unequally evaluated proposals and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding NASA reasonably concluded that ARES's original OCI plan complied with solicitation requirements because the potentially conflicting SMAS III contract had not yet been awarded when final proposals were submitted. The watchdog also noted NASA later conducted an OCI investigation and the agency's head of contracting activity waived any remaining potential conflict.
According to GAO, the waiver meant any alleged omission concerning the potential OCI was not material to the procurement outcome. The decision also found NASA's exchanges with ARES regarding the OCI plan did not amount to discussions because they did not change ARES's technical or price proposal.
GAO further concluded that NASA evaluated proposals consistently with the solicitation and reasonably assigned ARES higher ratings under the management approach subfactor. ARES received 850 mission suitability points compared with 798 points for a.i. solutions, while both firms received "Very High" past performance confidence ratings.
NASA selected ARES for award based on what it determined was the best overall value to the government.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424229%2Cb-424229.2
Publicly Released on: May 12, 2026 Published: April 30, 2026
Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester.
Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips III, Esq., Jack O. Raineri, Esq., and Anthony Iorio, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for ARES Technical Services Corp., the intervenor.
Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., Adam C. Supple, Esq., and Grant L. Arnold, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Covenant Aviation Security Protest Against VMD Systems Integrators Over San Francisco Airport Contract Denied
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Covenant Aviation Security LLC, Bolingbrook, Illinois, challenging the award of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration contract to VMD Systems Integrators LLC, McLean, Virginia, for passenger and baggage screening services at San Francisco International Airport.
The dispute involved a task order issued by the TSA for security screening operations under the agency's Screening Partnership Program. The contract covers a six-month transition period, four one-year option periods
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Covenant Aviation Security LLC, Bolingbrook, Illinois, challenging the award of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration contract to VMD Systems Integrators LLC, McLean, Virginia, for passenger and baggage screening services at San Francisco International Airport.
The dispute involved a task order issued by the TSA for security screening operations under the agency's Screening Partnership Program. The contract covers a six-month transition period, four one-year option periodsand an additional six-month option period.
Covenant Aviation Security, the incumbent contractor at the airport since the program's inception, argued that TSA improperly evaluated VMD's past performance, conducted a flawed price realism analysis and failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected all of the claims.
The decision found that TSA reasonably determined VMD's prior airport screening contracts were relevant even though they involved smaller airports than San Francisco International Airport, which is classified as a CAT X airport -- the highest and most complex category in the TSA system.
GAO noted that San Francisco International Airport is the only CAT X airport participating in the Screening Partnership Program, making it impossible for competitors other than Covenant Aviation Security to provide directly comparable references. VMD's past performance references included screening operations at airports in Kansas City, Missouri; Rochester, New York; and Atlantic City, New Jersey.
The watchdog agency also upheld TSA's review of VMD's pricing. Covenant Aviation Security had argued that VMD proposed unrealistically low fringe benefits and improperly used blended labor rates for regular and overtime hours. GAO concluded that TSA reasonably verified VMD's compensation levels complied with federal wage and labor requirements and that the solicitation did not prohibit blended rates.
In addition, GAO rejected arguments that VMD failed to include required non-labor costs such as insurance and leased space, finding the solicitation did not mandate those costs be separately priced.
The agency further determined that TSA properly conducted its best-value analysis, concluding that while Covenant Aviation Security's proposal offered slight technical advantages, those benefits did not justify its roughly $23.9 million price premium over VMD.
VMD's evaluated price was approximately $803.2 million, compared with Covenant Aviation Security's $827.2 million proposal.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423995%2Cb-423995.2
Publicly Released on: May 11, 2026 Published: Feb. 11, 2026
Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., Asher F. Young, Esq., and Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for the protester.
Craig A. Holman, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Kristina Lorch, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for VMD Systems Integrators, LLC, the intervenor.
Michael Kiffney, Esq., and Christopher J. Curry, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.
Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses Protest by AIMS-USGP JV Against AcmeSolv LLC in Army Contract Dispute
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a bid protest filed by AIMS-USGP JV LLC, a small business joint venture based in Aldie, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a pharmacist services task order to AcmeSolv LLC, a small business based in Bethesda, Maryland.
The contract covers clinical, outpatient, and inpatient pharmacist services at Brook Army Medical Center and related facilities on Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
In a decision issued May 5, the Government Accountability Office found that AIMS's protest was untimely because the company's objections
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has dismissed a bid protest filed by AIMS-USGP JV LLC, a small business joint venture based in Aldie, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a pharmacist services task order to AcmeSolv LLC, a small business based in Bethesda, Maryland.
The contract covers clinical, outpatient, and inpatient pharmacist services at Brook Army Medical Center and related facilities on Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
In a decision issued May 5, the Government Accountability Office found that AIMS's protest was untimely because the company's objectionsconcerned solicitation terms that were apparent before proposals were due.
The U.S. Army Medical Command issued the solicitation in January under the Defense Health Agency's Medical Q-Coded Staffing-Next Generation (MQS2-NG) contracting vehicle. The procurement called for a six-month base period with four one-year option periods and provided for award on a best-value basis considering compensation plans, past performance, and price.
Under the solicitation, the Army evaluated compensation plans using market salary data from Salary.com, ZipRecruiter, and Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Proposals with compensation rates more than 10 percent below the government's calculated market benchmarks would receive an unacceptable rating and become ineligible for award.
Army evaluators determined that portions of AIMS's proposed compensation rates fell below the required threshold, resulting in the company's elimination from further consideration. The Army subsequently awarded the task order to AcmeSolv for approximately $38.1 million.
AIMS argued the Army relied on flawed salary data that produced unrealistic comparisons among pharmacist positions with differing education and experience requirements. The protester also challenged the Army's use of a 6.6 percent annual escalation rate derived from recent inflation data.
The GAO rejected those claims, concluding the solicitation clearly disclosed both the salary sources and escalation methodology. The office said any challenge to those methods should have been raised before the proposal submission deadline.
The decision also rejected AIMS's argument that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity, finding the evaluation criteria plainly described how the Army would conduct its compensation analysis.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424353
Publicly Released on: May 8, 2026 Published: May 5, 2026
Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., and Nicholas H. Hopkins, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester.
Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for AcmeSolv, LLC, the intervenor.
Major Jonathan S. DeMille, John C. Degnan, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Susan Kim, and Robert B. Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Protest by New Dominion Construction Over Navy HVAC Contract Competition Involving Southland Industries
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by New Dominion Construction LLC, a small business contractor based in Dumfries, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a U.S. Navy competition for HVAC construction projects at military installations.
The procurement, issued by the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, sought multiple IDIQ contracts covering HVAC systems, mechanical construction projects and related services.
The Navy sought to award about five contracts through the federal 8(a) small business program, with a two-year base period
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by New Dominion Construction LLC, a small business contractor based in Dumfries, Virginia, challenging its exclusion from a U.S. Navy competition for HVAC construction projects at military installations.
The procurement, issued by the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, sought multiple IDIQ contracts covering HVAC systems, mechanical construction projects and related services.
The Navy sought to award about five contracts through the federal 8(a) small business program, with a two-year base periodand two three-year option periods.
New Dominion Construction argued the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal under the corporate experience factor and unfairly removed the company from the competitive range. The protester also alleged the agency conducted misleading discussions during negotiations.
According to the May 4 decision, the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate relevant construction experience, including at least one project with a final construction cost of $10 million or more. The solicitation further stated that offerors generally could not rely on a subcontractor's experience to satisfy the construction experience requirement.
In its proposal, New Dominion relied heavily on projects performed by Southland Industries, the Garden Grove, California-based subcontractor it proposed to use as architect, engineer, and designer of record.
Navy evaluators determined those projects could not be credited toward New Dominion's required construction experience because they were performed by a subcontractor rather than by the prime contractor itself. As a result, the agency rated the proposal unacceptable under the corporate experience factor and excluded the company from further consideration.
The GAO agreed with the Navy's interpretation of the solicitation, concluding the language clearly prohibited offerors from relying on subcontractor construction experience except in limited situations that did not apply in this procurement.
The watchdog office also rejected claims that discussions were misleading, finding the Navy repeatedly informed New Dominion that its proposal lacked a qualifying $10 million construction project.
General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez concluded that the protest was denied, leaving intact the Navy's decision to exclude New Dominion Construction from the competition.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424227
Publicly Released on: May 8, 2026 Published: May 4, 2026
Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., and Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester.
Kyle W. Krombach, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Samantha S. Lee, Esq., Jungi Hong, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Platinum Business Services Protest Over USAID Closeout Support Contract Awarded to 2TechJV
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Platinum Business Services LLC, Clarksville, Maryland, challenging the award of a U.S. Agency for International Development task order to 2TechJV LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for institutional support services tied to the agency's ongoing closeout operations.
The procurement sought contractor support for USAID-wide shutdown and closeout activities, including the winding down of programs, contracts, grants, financial management functions and workforce operations. The task order was issued under a General Services
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Platinum Business Services LLC, Clarksville, Maryland, challenging the award of a U.S. Agency for International Development task order to 2TechJV LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for institutional support services tied to the agency's ongoing closeout operations.
The procurement sought contractor support for USAID-wide shutdown and closeout activities, including the winding down of programs, contracts, grants, financial management functions and workforce operations. The task order was issued under a General ServicesAdministration federal supply schedule contract and was limited to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
GAO rejected Platinum's claims that USAID improperly evaluated technical and price quotations and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff.
Under the solicitation, non-price factors were more important than price. USAID evaluated quotations under management approach, staffing plan and organizational capacity factors.
2TechJV received ratings of "very good" for management approach and "exceptional" for both staffing plan and organizational capacity. Platinum received "satisfactory" ratings for management approach and staffing plan and a "marginal" rating for organizational capacity.
Although Platinum proposed the lower price at about $67 million compared with 2TechJV's roughly $80.6 million quotation, the agency concluded that 2TechJV's technical advantages justified the higher cost.
GAO found that USAID reasonably determined Platinum's proposal lacked sufficient tailoring to the "uniquely compressed" USAID closeout effort and demonstrated limited experience with agency-wide institutional shutdowns and key functional areas such as human capital, financial management and legal operations.
The protester argued the agency treated vendors unequally because both firms were criticized for limited USAID-specific tailoring under the management approach factor. GAO disagreed, finding the weaknesses were materially different and noting that 2TechJV received three strengths under the factor while Platinum received only one.
GAO also rejected claims that USAID applied unstated evaluation criteria. The decision said the agency reasonably considered whether vendors had experience supporting agency-wide shutdown efforts and multiple operational functions because those requirements were logically encompassed within the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.
The watchdog further upheld the agency's price evaluation, concluding USAID properly analyzed proposed labor mixes, levels of effort and price reasonableness in accordance with the solicitation.
GAO ultimately found that USAID reasonably determined 2TechJV's stronger technical quotation and lower performance risk outweighed Platinum's lower proposed price.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424276%2Cb-424276.2
Publicly Released on: May 12, 2026 Published: May 4, 2026
Lee Dougherty, Esq., Esna Mihail, Esq., and Bryan Short, Esq., Effectus, PLLC, for the protester.
Isaias "Cy" Alba, IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for 2TechJV, LLC, the intervenor.
Richard C. Loeb, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the United States Agency for International Development, the agency.[1]
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies A.I. Solutions Protest Over NASA Wallops Flight Facility Contract Award to ARES
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by A.I. Solutions Inc., Lanham, Maryland, challenging NASA's award of a major operations and maintenance contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., McLean, Virginia, for work at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island.
The procurement, issued by NASA sought support services for the Wallops Range Contract, including launch ground operations, engineering, command and control, information technology, maintenance and sustainment services. The contract carried a maximum ordering value of about $253.8 million and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by A.I. Solutions Inc., Lanham, Maryland, challenging NASA's award of a major operations and maintenance contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., McLean, Virginia, for work at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island.
The procurement, issued by NASA sought support services for the Wallops Range Contract, including launch ground operations, engineering, command and control, information technology, maintenance and sustainment services. The contract carried a maximum ordering value of about $253.8 million andincluded a one-year base period with four option years.
a.i. solutions argued that NASA should have rejected ARES's proposal because the company allegedly failed to disclose a potential organizational conflict of interest tied to a separate NASA contract known as Safety and Mission Assurance Services III. The protester also claimed NASA conducted improper unequal discussions by permitting ARES to revise its OCI plan after award and alleged the agency unequally evaluated proposals and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected those arguments, finding NASA reasonably concluded that ARES's original OCI plan complied with solicitation requirements because the potentially conflicting SMAS III contract had not yet been awarded when final proposals were submitted. The watchdog also noted NASA later conducted an OCI investigation and the agency's head of contracting activity waived any remaining potential conflict.
According to GAO, the waiver meant any alleged omission concerning the potential OCI was not material to the procurement outcome. The decision also found NASA's exchanges with ARES regarding the OCI plan did not amount to discussions because they did not change ARES's technical or price proposal.
GAO further concluded that NASA evaluated proposals consistently with the solicitation and reasonably assigned ARES higher ratings under the management approach subfactor. ARES received 850 mission suitability points compared with 798 points for a.i. solutions, while both firms received "Very High" past performance confidence ratings.
NASA selected ARES for award based on what it determined was the best overall value to the government.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424229%2Cb-424229.2
Publicly Released on: May 12, 2026 Published: April 30, 2026
Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester.
Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips III, Esq., Jack O. Raineri, Esq., and Anthony Iorio, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for ARES Technical Services Corp., the intervenor.
Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., Adam C. Supple, Esq., and Grant L. Arnold, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Exail Protest Over NOAA Marine Systems Contract to Chance Marine Technologies Denied by GAO
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Exail Inc., Denver, Colorado, challenging the award of a U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contract to Chance Technologies LLC dba Chance Marine Technologies, Lafayette, Louisiana.
The procurement sought uncrewed marine systems and related services to support NOAA vessel operations, including hydrographic and fisheries acoustic surveys. The agency issued the solicitation in December 2024 and planned to award a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Exail Inc., Denver, Colorado, challenging the award of a U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contract to Chance Technologies LLC dba Chance Marine Technologies, Lafayette, Louisiana.
The procurement sought uncrewed marine systems and related services to support NOAA vessel operations, including hydrographic and fisheries acoustic surveys. The agency issued the solicitation in December 2024 and planned to award a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery,indefinite-quantity contract.
Exail argued that NOAA improperly assigned a deficiency to its technical proposal while failing to identify deficiencies in Chance Marine Technologies' proposal. The company also challenged the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposed uncrewed maritime system.
GAO found NOAA reasonably assessed a deficiency in Exail's proposal because it failed to address required training materials specified in the solicitation. While Exail described its training program and instructor-level training, the agency concluded the proposal omitted discussion of mandatory instructor and student guides needed for NOAA personnel to independently conduct future training.
The watchdog said the solicitation clearly required offerors to provide a comprehensive explanation of how they would meet all training obligations, including detailed instructional materials. GAO agreed with NOAA that the omission created performance risk because the agency could remain dependent on the contractor for future training support.
GAO also rejected Exail's claim of unequal treatment, finding that Chance Marine Technologies' proposal included more detailed information regarding the development and provision of training materials.
In addition, Exail challenged whether Chance's proposed LR30 uncrewed maritime system met NOAA Readiness Level 8 requirements. The protester argued the awardee failed to demonstrate operational compliance with several technical specifications, including speed, endurance and launch-and-recovery capabilities.
GAO disagreed, finding the solicitation permitted NOAA to rely on testing, modeling and simulation data to determine whether the proposed system met readiness-level requirements. The decision said NOAA reasonably concluded Chance's proposal demonstrated sufficient technical maturity and operational capability.
The watchdog also dismissed Exail's allegation that NOAA improperly relied on information outside Chance's proposal during the technical evaluation. GAO said agencies are permitted, though not required, to consider external information in evaluating technical proposals.
According to the evaluation record, Chance Marine Technologies received satisfactory ratings for the two non-price technical factors and a very good past performance rating, with a proposed price of about $13.5 million. Exail received an unsatisfactory rating under the most important technical factor because of the assessed deficiency, despite receiving strengths in other areas, and proposed a price of approximately $28.7 million.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424225%2Cb-424225.2%2Cb-424225.3
Publicly Released on: May 13, 2026 Published: April 30, 2026
Stephen Ruscus, Esq., and Kaitlyn E. Toth, Esq., Baker & Hostetler LLP, for the protester.
Jeremiah Kline, Esq., and Andrew Parker Frank, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Hasen Global Protest Over Army Corps Construction Contract Award to Cerris Builders
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Hasen Global LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction contract to Cerris Builders Inc., Pflugerville, Texas, for sustainment, restoration and modernization work at a military facility in Louisiana.
The dispute stemmed from a request for proposals issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for renovation and modernization services at a tactical equipment maintenance facility located at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The procurement was conducted under a best-value evaluation
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Hasen Global LLC, Frederick, Maryland, challenging the award of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction contract to Cerris Builders Inc., Pflugerville, Texas, for sustainment, restoration and modernization work at a military facility in Louisiana.
The dispute stemmed from a request for proposals issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for renovation and modernization services at a tactical equipment maintenance facility located at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The procurement was conducted under a best-value evaluationscheme that considered both price and several non-price factors, including past performance, project scheduling, and small business participation.
The GAO concluded that the Corps' evaluation of proposals and its resulting source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The GAO found no basis to question the agency's judgment in selecting Cerris Builders' higher-priced proposal over Hasen Global's lower-priced offer.
Hasen Global, a small business based in Frederick, Maryland, argued that the agency improperly evaluated both its own proposal and that of the awardee. The protester also alleged that the Corps failed to properly assess differences in price and unreasonably credited Cerris Builders with a stronger small business participation approach.
The record showed that the agency received five proposals and evaluated them under the stated criteria. Cerris Builders received a higher "substantial confidence" rating for past performance, while Hasen Global received a lower "satisfactory confidence" rating. Based on this distinction, the agency concluded that Cerris Builders presented lower performance risk and superior past performance.
The Corps ultimately awarded the contract to Cerris Builders at approximately $33.7 million, despite Hasen Global's lower-priced offer of about $28.1 million, determining that the technical advantages outweighed the price premium.
GAO also rejected Hasen Global's challenges related to small business participation and scheduling requirements, finding that the protester failed to provide required socioeconomic participation details and used an incorrect scheduling method based on working days instead of calendar days.
In addition, the GAO upheld the agency's conclusion that Cerris Builders met solicitation requirements for small business participation, noting that the evaluation reasonably relied on the information provided in the firm's proposal.
The protest was denied in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424168.2%2Cb-424168.3
Publicly Released on: May 6, 2026 Published: April 8, 2026
Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., Eric Leonard, Esq., Matthew Howell, Esq., and Kristina Zaslavskaya, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, for the protester.
Patrick K. Burns, Esq., and Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq., Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, for Cerris Builders, Inc., the intervenor.
Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., N. Harry Herrick, Esq., Deborah L. Collins, Esq., and Elliott A. Stanley, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Bailey's Premier Services Protest Over Air Force Maintenance Services Contracts
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by Bailey's Premier Services LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, challenging its exclusion from a U.S. Air Force competition for maintenance services contracts.
The protest concerned a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity procurement for Contractor Field Team Labor Augmentation Support Requirements maintenance support services for Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The solicitation allowed both full-and-open competition and a separate pool reserved for small businesses.
Bailey's argued that
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Government Accountability Office denied a protest filed by Bailey's Premier Services LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, challenging its exclusion from a U.S. Air Force competition for maintenance services contracts.
The protest concerned a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity procurement for Contractor Field Team Labor Augmentation Support Requirements maintenance support services for Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The solicitation allowed both full-and-open competition and a separate pool reserved for small businesses.
Bailey's argued thatthe Air Force improperly evaluated its proposal after finding it technically unacceptable under the solicitation's small business participation requirements. The company contended that it had provided all substantive information required to demonstrate its commitment to small business participation and that the agency should have evaluated the proposal as a whole.
The Air Force rejected Bailey's proposal because the company failed to place a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document in the technical proposal volume, as expressly required by the solicitation. Instead, the document was included in a separate section of the submission.
In its April 15 decision, GAO concluded that the Air Force reasonably applied the solicitation requirements. The watchdog noted that the solicitation specifically instructed offerors to prepare technical proposals on a "stand-alone basis" without requiring evaluators to cross-reference other proposal volumes.
GAO also emphasized that the solicitation warned contractors that information omitted from the technical volume would not be considered during evaluation and that failure to include the completed commitment document in that section would render a proposal technically unacceptable.
The protest decision identified Amentum Services Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, as the intervenor defending the procurement award process.
Bailey's relied in part on an earlier GAO ruling involving proposal compliance reviews, but the watchdog found that case distinguishable. GAO explained that, unlike the earlier protest, the Air Force solicitation here expressly established a pass/fail evaluation standard for the small business participation document requirement.
The decision concluded that Bailey's failure to comply with the proposal submission instructions justified the Air Force's evaluation and exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423066.3
Publicly Released on: April 29, 2026 Published: April 15, 2026
Jeremy S. Scholtes, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester.
Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Michael P. Ols, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for Amentum Services, Inc., the intervenor.
Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Geoffrey R. Townsend, Esq., Major Princess Gaye, and Alexander S. Hall, 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.
