Featured Stories
GAO Denies Aero Simulation Request to Reconsider Air Force Training Contract Protest
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Aero Simulation Inc., Tampa, Florida, to reconsider its dismissal of a protest challenging the U.S. Air Force's decision to exclude the company from a competition for training systems program support services.
In an Oct. 5 decision, GAO found that Aero Simulation failed to demonstrate any material errors of fact or law in its earlier ruling, which dismissed the company's protest as an untimely challenge to the solicitation's evaluation requirements.
The dispute concerns a two-step procurement under which the Air
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a request by Aero Simulation Inc., Tampa, Florida, to reconsider its dismissal of a protest challenging the U.S. Air Force's decision to exclude the company from a competition for training systems program support services.
In an Oct. 5 decision, GAO found that Aero Simulation failed to demonstrate any material errors of fact or law in its earlier ruling, which dismissed the company's protest as an untimely challenge to the solicitation's evaluation requirements.
The dispute concerns a two-step procurement under which the AirForce evaluated companies' technical qualifications, including experience executing engineering change proposals on full flight simulators. To receive a confidence rating above low confidence, offerors had to demonstrate experience performing such work on at least five full flight simulators of the same device type.
The solicitation defined a full flight simulator as a six-axis motion simulator. Aero Simulation submitted experience involving a weapon systems trainer systems integration laboratory as one of its five simulator references, arguing that the device qualified even though its physical motion components had been removed.
The Air Force rated the company's experience as low confidence because the laboratory lacked six-axis motion capability when the engineering change proposals were performed, resulting in Aero Simulation's exclusion from further consideration.
Aero Simulation argued that the solicitation did not explicitly require a simulator to have six-axis motion hardware installed and operational at the time the work was performed. The company maintained that the Air Force had applied an unstated evaluation criterion and that its protest challenged the agency's evaluation rather than the solicitation's terms.
GAO rejected that argument, finding that the solicitation, read as a whole, clearly required experience involving six-axis motion simulators. The office also noted that Aero Simulation had previously asked the Air Force to clarify whether its laboratory experience would qualify. The agency did not endorse the company's interpretation, and Aero Simulation proceeded with its proposal without challenging the uncertainty before the submission deadline.
In its reconsideration request, Aero Simulation also argued that GAO had incorrectly concluded the company had prior knowledge of the Air Force's interpretation. GAO said its earlier decision did not find that the company knew the agency's exact interpretation, but that it knew the agency had not confirmed its own interpretation and therefore competed at its own risk.
GAO concluded that the company's arguments repeated points already considered and rejected in the original decision. It denied the request for reconsideration.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424444.2
Publicly Released on: Oct. 9, 2026. Published: Oct. 5, 2026.
Jacob D. Noe, Esq., Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Kenneth M. Hyde., Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester.
Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies RFD Beaufort Protest Against Navy Sole-Source Award to Mustang Survival
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by RFD Beaufort Inc., Sharon Center, Ohio, challenging the U.S. Navy's decision to award a sole-source contract to Mustang Survival Manufacturing Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, for 542 submarine escape and surface survival suits.
In an Oct. 7 decision, GAO's Office of General Counsel concluded that the Navy reasonably awarded the contract to preserve Mustang's manufacturing capabilities and maintain a second source for the critical life-saving equipment.
RFD Beaufort argued that the Navy lacked sufficient evidence
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by RFD Beaufort Inc., Sharon Center, Ohio, challenging the U.S. Navy's decision to award a sole-source contract to Mustang Survival Manufacturing Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, for 542 submarine escape and surface survival suits.
In an Oct. 7 decision, GAO's Office of General Counsel concluded that the Navy reasonably awarded the contract to preserve Mustang's manufacturing capabilities and maintain a second source for the critical life-saving equipment.
RFD Beaufort argued that the Navy lacked sufficient evidenceto conclude that Mustang would leave the market without the contract. The company contended that the agency relied on speculation rather than concrete evidence that Mustang would discontinue production.
The Navy issued the solicitation on July 2 under an industrial mobilization provision that permits noncompetitive awards in certain circumstances to maintain essential manufacturers and suppliers for national defense.
The Navy explained that it had historically relied on RFD Beaufort as its sole supplier of the suits. To reduce the strategic risk of depending on one manufacturer, the agency worked to establish Mustang as a second qualified source.
Mustang invested time, resources and private capital over approximately five years to develop its production capabilities and qualify as an approved manufacturer in 2022. However, the company had not received a production contract since qualifying and had not recovered its investment costs.
The Navy determined that an order for 542 suits was the minimum necessary to keep Mustang's production line operational while the agency developed a long-term acquisition strategy. Without the order, officials believed Mustang faced a significant risk of abandoning its production operations, leaving the Navy dependent on a single supplier again.
GAO found that the Navy reasonably determined that maintaining two active manufacturers was essential to cost control, technical compliance, supply-chain resilience and military readiness. Agency officials also cited previous price increases and problematic design changes when the Navy relied on a single manufacturer.
GAO rejected RFD Beaufort's argument that the Navy needed a financial analysis proving Mustang would close its production line without the award. The applicable law does not require that level of certainty, GAO said, but requires a reasonable basis for the agency's decision.
Military agencies have discretion to determine which manufacturers should be maintained in the industrial base for national defense. GAO will question those judgments only when the evidence convincingly demonstrates an abuse of discretion.
Finding no such abuse, GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424661%2Cb-424661.2
Publicly Released on: Oct. 9, 2026. Published: Oct. 7, 2026.
Thomas E. Daley, Esq., David R. Lacker, Esq., and Frederick W. La Violette, Esq., DLA Piper LLP- US, for the protester.
Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Stephen Darby, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., and Celeste Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc., the intervenor.
Susan Whitley Newburg, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Asset Protection Protest Over ICE $510.8 Million Detainee Transportation Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Asset Protection and Security Services LP, Corpus Christi, Texas, challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision to reopen competition for a $510.8 million detainee transportation contract covering parts of California.
In an Oct. 7 decision, GAO found that ICE reasonably took corrective action after discovering that the solicitation omitted a required collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing applicable wage rates for detention officers in Los Angeles and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Asset Protection and Security Services LP, Corpus Christi, Texas, challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision to reopen competition for a $510.8 million detainee transportation contract covering parts of California.
In an Oct. 7 decision, GAO found that ICE reasonably took corrective action after discovering that the solicitation omitted a required collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing applicable wage rates for detention officers in Los Angeles andOrange counties.
ICE issued the solicitation in December 2025 for transportation services in its Los Angeles area of responsibility, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, as well as Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.
The agency initially awarded the contract to Asset on May 29 for $510.8 million. However, after two unsuccessful offerors challenged the award, ICE discovered that it had failed to include the applicable CBA in the solicitation.
Although the agency had informed bidders that a CBA covered employees in Los Angeles and Orange counties, it did not provide a copy. Instead, it directed offerors to use Department of Labor wage determinations that listed lower rates than those required under the CBA.
ICE determined that Asset and several other offerors had submitted prices below the applicable minimum wage rates. The agency consequently amended the solicitation to include the CBA and requested revised price proposals.
Asset protested the corrective action, arguing that the original solicitation contained no defect warranting reopening the competition. The company also contended that disclosing its original contract price would put it at a competitive disadvantage when competing against other bidders.
GAO disagreed, finding that the missing wage information prevented offerors from preparing accurate prices and competing on a relatively equal basis. The agency reasonably concluded that providing the CBA was necessary to ensure a fair competition and obtain proposals that complied with applicable wage requirements.
GAO also rejected Asset's argument that disclosure of its original price made reopening the competition improper. It found that agencies may request revised prices after an awardee's price has been disclosed when corrective action addresses a legitimate procurement flaw.
The decision noted that the solicitation's inaccurate information could have resulted in below-cost offers, leaving ICE uncertain whether bidders intended to perform at those prices.
GAO concluded that ICE had identified both a genuine solicitation defect and a reasonable basis for reopening the competition. It therefore denied Asset's protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424568.3
Publicly Released on: Oct. 9, 2026. Published: Oct. 7, 2026.
Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for the protester.
Joshua K. Adams, Esq. and Megha Vyas, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 Dismisses Hendall Protest Over CMS Contract Award to Serco
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office dismissed a bid protest by Hendall Inc., Rockville, Maryland, challenging the award of a federal health care services contract to Serco Inc., Herndon, Virginia, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ruling that the protest was filed after the applicable deadline.
In an Oct. 1 decision, GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez determined that Hendall failed to file its protest within 10 days of knowing or reasonably being expected to know the grounds for its objections to the award.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office dismissed a bid protest by Hendall Inc., Rockville, Maryland, challenging the award of a federal health care services contract to Serco Inc., Herndon, Virginia, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ruling that the protest was filed after the applicable deadline.
In an Oct. 1 decision, GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez determined that Hendall failed to file its protest within 10 days of knowing or reasonably being expected to know the grounds for its objections to the award.
Thecontract covers management and operation of the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program, which reviews Medicare fee-for-service claims to estimate improper payments.
Hendall challenged CMS's decision to award the task order to Serco, arguing that the agency failed to properly consider price in its best-value determination and conducted an unauthorized price realism evaluation by questioning the adequacy of Hendall's proposed labor hours.
GAO found both allegations untimely under its protest regulations.
CMS first issued the solicitation in February 2025, seeking a contractor for a potential seven-year, three-month performance period. Following the initial evaluation, Hendall was excluded from the competitive range and protested the decision in August 2025, raising concerns about the agency's assessment of its proposed staffing levels.
CMS subsequently took corrective action, held discussions with vendors and allowed them to submit revised quotations. The agency announced in November 2025 that Serco had submitted the best-value quotation, prompting another protest from Hendall challenging the agency's consideration of price.
That protest was dismissed after another vendor challenged the procurement before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. CMS later agreed to reevaluate quotations and issue a new award decision.
Following the reevaluation, CMS again selected Serco. The agency notified Hendall of the award on May 28, 2026, and provided a brief explanation of its decision on June 16. Hendall filed its latest protest on June 26.
GAO determined that Hendall knew or should have known the basis for challenging the best-value decision by May 28, when CMS announced the new award to Serco at a price substantially higher than Hendall's. The agency's subsequent explanation did not extend the filing deadline because the procurement did not require a formal debriefing.
GAO also found that Hendall had been aware of its concerns about the evaluation of labor hours during discussions in August 2025. At that time, CMS questioned the hours Hendall proposed for 22 tasks and requested additional justification for certain staffing estimates.
Although Hendall argued that the agency's explanation of the award revealed the alleged improper evaluation, GAO concluded that the company already knew the relevant facts and could not wait for additional details before filing its protest.
Under GAO's rules, protests generally must be filed within 10 days after the protester knew or should have known the grounds for challenging an award.
GAO therefore dismissed Hendall's protest without considering the merits of its allegations.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423714.5
Publicly Released on: Oct. 5, 2026. Published: Oct. 1, 2026.
Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., and Kaylee E. Jacobson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester.
Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and William B. O'Reilly, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Serco, Inc., the intervenor.
Joon K. Hong, Esq., and David A. Lank, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, 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 Keta Environmental Protest of Army Contract Award to KTH Services
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Keta Environmental and Infrastructure LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenging the U.S. Army's decision to award a base operations support services contract to KTH Services JV LLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for work at Fort Carson and the Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado.
In a Sept. 22 decision, GAO found that the Army reasonably determined that KTH's superior past performance justified paying a 0.95% price premium over Keta's proposal. GAO also rejected Keta's argument that the Army failed to conduct meaningful
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Keta Environmental and Infrastructure LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenging the U.S. Army's decision to award a base operations support services contract to KTH Services JV LLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for work at Fort Carson and the Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado.
In a Sept. 22 decision, GAO found that the Army reasonably determined that KTH's superior past performance justified paying a 0.95% price premium over Keta's proposal. GAO also rejected Keta's argument that the Army failed to conduct meaningfuldiscussions about perceived shortcomings in its past performance record.
The Army issued the solicitation in March 2024 as a set-aside for businesses in historically underutilized business zones. The contract covers six service areas: grounds maintenance, pavement clearance, vertical and horizontal facility maintenance, heating and cooling, and wastewater services.
Keta submitted a proposal priced at approximately $243.09 million, while KTH proposed approximately $245.07 million. Both companies received the same overall rating of substantial confidence for past performance and were considered technically acceptable.
Although the Army's evaluation team initially recommended awarding the contract to Keta as the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, the source selection authority conducted a separate best-value analysis and selected KTH.
The selection authority found that KTH's joint venture partner, T&H Services LLC, was the incumbent contractor performing the same services at Fort Carson. Its performance covered all six service areas and had been rated exceptional, providing a strong indication of future success and reducing transition and performance risks.
By comparison, the Army found that Keta's past performance examples, while generally strong, had gaps in scope and magnitude. Some projects involved smaller grounds maintenance and wastewater operations than required at Fort Carson, while other examples lacked sufficient detail about critical services such as plumbing, security systems and boiler plant operations.
Keta argued that the Army improperly favored KTH because of its incumbent status and should have given greater weight to its lower price. GAO disagreed, explaining that the solicitation did not require price to become the deciding factor when proposals received the same overall past performance rating. Evaluators could consider qualitative differences between proposals and recognize the incumbent contractor's demonstrated experience performing identical services.
GAO concluded that the Army reasonably determined that KTH's proven performance and lower execution risk justified the price premium and provided the best value to the government.
GAO also rejected Keta's claim that the Army should have discussed the identified shortcomings. The agency had not found poor performance on Keta's previous contracts; its concerns related to how closely those projects matched the current requirements. Such relevance assessments did not constitute adverse past performance information requiring discussions.
GAO denied the protest in full.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424583%2Cb-424583.2%2Cb-424583.3
Publicly Released on: Oct. 2, 2026. Published: Sept. 22, 2026.
Matthew Moriarty, Esq., Kaylee Jacobson, Esq., Timothy Laughlin, Esq., and Ian Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester.
Jeffery Chiow, Esq., Cindy Lopez, Esq., and Gabrielle Dell, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for KTH Services JV, LLC, the intervenor.
Robert B. Neill, Esq., Susan Kim, Esq., and Amber Bunch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Advantix Engineering Protest of Puerto Rico Army National Guard Contract Bid Rejection
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest by Advantix Engineering Corp., Caguas, Puerto Rico, challenging the Puerto Rico Army National Guard's rejection of its low-priced bid for construction services because of a defective bid bond.
In a decision dated Sept. 22, GAO found that the Puerto Rico Army National Guard reasonably determined that the company's bid was nonresponsive because the bond's stated liability limit was substantially below the amount required by the solicitation.
The solicitation, issued May 12, sought construction of the Puerto Rico Army
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest by Advantix Engineering Corp., Caguas, Puerto Rico, challenging the Puerto Rico Army National Guard's rejection of its low-priced bid for construction services because of a defective bid bond.
In a decision dated Sept. 22, GAO found that the Puerto Rico Army National Guard reasonably determined that the company's bid was nonresponsive because the bond's stated liability limit was substantially below the amount required by the solicitation.
The solicitation, issued May 12, sought construction of the Puerto Rico ArmyNational Guard Engineering and Housing Maintenance Shops for the Directorate of Public Works at Camp Santiago Joint Training Center in Salinas, Puerto Rico. The procurement was reserved for small businesses and called for a fixed-price contract awarded based on price to a responsible bidder whose offer met the requirements.
The solicitation required a bid guarantee equal to 20% of the bid price or $3 million, whichever was less. The Army received nine bids, with Advantix submitting the lowest at $10,437,758. The next-lowest bid was $17,467,183.
Although Advantix's bid bond stated a penal sum of 20% of its bid price, it also limited the corporate surety's liability to $600,000. The Puerto Rico Army National Guard determined that the bond did not clearly guarantee the required amount and rejected the bid as nonresponsive on July 6.
Advantix argued that the agency improperly assessed the $600,000 liability limit separately rather than interpreting the bond as a whole.
GAO disagreed, citing a similar 2004 decision involving a bid bond that stated a required penal sum but imposed a much lower surety liability limit. In that case, GAO found the conflicting amounts made the enforceable guarantee ambiguous and upheld the bid's rejection.
Here, 20% of Advantix's bid amounted to $2,087,551.60, far exceeding the bond's $600,000 liability limit. GAO concluded that the inconsistency made the guarantee ambiguous and that the Army properly rejected the bid.
The agency also cited a missing indication of the bid signatory's authority to bind Advantix. However, GAO did not address that issue because the defective bid bond independently justified the rejection.
GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424657
Publicly Released on: Oct. 2, 2026. Published: Sept. 22, 2026.
Ricardo Rene Gutierrez Guzman, Gutierrez Guzman Law & Accounting Office, for the protester.
Major Jane K. Riddle, Lieutenant Colonel William T. Wicks, and Robert B. Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, 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.
