Featured Stories
GAO Denies Potomac Valor Healthcare Protest Over Veterans Affairs Clinic Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Potomac Valor Healthcare-2 LLC, a joint venture involving Potomac Healthcare Solutions LLC and Valor Healthcare Inc., Woodbridge, Virginia, after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determined that the company was no longer eligible for a contract set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
The protest concerned a Veterans Affairs contract for primary care and mental health services at outpatient clinics. Potomac Valor challenged the agency's decision to eliminate
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Potomac Valor Healthcare-2 LLC, a joint venture involving Potomac Healthcare Solutions LLC and Valor Healthcare Inc., Woodbridge, Virginia, after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determined that the company was no longer eligible for a contract set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
The protest concerned a Veterans Affairs contract for primary care and mental health services at outpatient clinics. Potomac Valor challenged the agency's decision to eliminateits proposal from consideration and also raised objections to the evaluation and award to Primary Care Solutions LLC, Dallas, Texas.
The solicitation was issued in October 2023 and was initially unrestricted. The Veterans Affairs later amended it to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses under the agency's Veterans First contracting program. The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 12-month base period and four 12-month ordering periods.
Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical capabilities, geographic location and accessibility, past performance and price. The non-price factors collectively were significantly more important than price.
Potomac Valor and Primary Care Solutions submitted proposals by the December 2023 deadline. At that time, Potomac Valor was a verified service-disabled veteran-owned small business listed in the Small Business Administration's certification database. The Veterans Affairs initially awarded the contract to Primary Care Solutions in October 2024.
Potomac Valor protested that award, prompting the Veterans Affairs to take corrective action and reevaluate the proposals. Before making a new award decision, however, the contracting officer learned of corporate transactions involving the joint venture's partners. The agency subsequently confirmed that Valor Healthcare, described in the decision as a large business, had acquired 100 percent of Potomac Healthcare Solutions on Jan. 5, 2026. Potomac Valor acknowledged that, as a result, neither Potomac nor the joint venture qualified as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business for future set-aside awards.
In May, the Veterans Affairs notified Potomac Valor that it was ineligible for the award because the joint venture no longer met the applicable eligibility requirements at the time of award. The agency then reaffirmed its award to Primary Care Solutions.
Potomac Valor argued that the joint venture's eligibility should have been determined when it submitted its proposal, rather than when the contract was awarded. The company pointed to Small Business Administration regulations stating that a joint venture must certify its status at the time of its initial offer.
The GAO rejected that interpretation. It found that the Veterans Affairs regulations governing its Veterans First program unambiguously required a joint venture to be a verified service-disabled veteran-owned small business both when it submitted its proposal and when the award was made. The decision said the relevant Veterans Affairs regulations must be read together and that the joint venture provision directs offerors back to requirements that expressly include eligibility at the time of award.
The GAO also noted that the solicitation itself specifically instructed potential contractors to be registered and certified as service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses at both the time of proposal submission and award.
Although Potomac Valor had been certified when it submitted its proposal in December 2023, Valor Healthcare's acquisition of Potomac in January 2026 changed the joint venture's status. The GAO concluded that the Veterans Affairs therefore properly eliminated Potomac Valor from consideration for the contract.
The decision acknowledged that the Small Business Administration disagreed with the Veterans Affairs' interpretation, asserting that its regulations establish when a joint venture is eligible under the federal service-disabled veteran-owned small business program. However, The GAO said the procurement was conducted under the Veterans First authority, which gives the Veterans Affairs separate regulatory authority. The office concluded that the Veterans Affairs regulations could impose requirements that were more stringent or different from the Small Business Administration's general rules.
Because Potomac Valor was no longer eligible for the set-aside, The GAO also dismissed the company's remaining challenges to the evaluation of Primary Care Solutions' proposal and the agency's best-value decision. The office found that Potomac Valor was not an "interested party" because it could not receive the contract under the solicitation.
The GAO concluded that the Veterans Affairs reasonably eliminated Potomac Valor from the competition and that the company lacked the standing to pursue its remaining allegations. The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423195.2%2Cb-423195.3
Publicly Released on: Aug. 18, 2026. Published: Aug. 12, 2026.
Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., and Ashton P. Jones-Doherty, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester.
David A. Rose, Esq., Rose Consulting Law Firm, for Primary Care Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs; and Edmund M. Bender, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Wepa Commercial Cleaning Protest of Salmon Group's Veterans Affairs Custodial Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Wepa Commercial Cleaning LLC, Chula Vista, California, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' decision to award a custodial services contract to Salmon Group Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business based in Washington, D.C.
The decision, issued Aug. 17, involved a Veterans Affairs solicitation for custodial services at the Seattle VA Medical Center. Wepa challenged the agency's best-value tradeoff and argued that the corrective action taken after an earlier protest was not meaningful.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The General Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by Wepa Commercial Cleaning LLC, Chula Vista, California, challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' decision to award a custodial services contract to Salmon Group Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business based in Washington, D.C.
The decision, issued Aug. 17, involved a Veterans Affairs solicitation for custodial services at the Seattle VA Medical Center. Wepa challenged the agency's best-value tradeoff and argued that the corrective action taken after an earlier protest was not meaningful.
Thesolicitation, issued June 10, 2025, was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and sought custodial services including cleaning restrooms, dining areas, the canteen, retail spaces, elevators, hallways, examination and waiting rooms, and administrative areas. The contract included a one-year base period and four one-year option periods.
Proposals were evaluated on technical approach, past performance and price. Technical approach and past performance were equally weighted and, together, were significantly more important than price. The agency received 53 proposals by the July 28, 2025, deadline.
The Veterans Affairs initially selected Salmon Group for the contract in September 2025. Wepa subsequently filed a protest with the General Accountability Office, but the agency took corrective action by agreeing to reevaluate the two companies' technical proposals and determine whether the award should change.
Following the reevaluation, Salmon Group again received the contract. Wepa's technical approach was rated acceptable, while Salmon Group's was rated outstanding. Wepa received a relevant, substantial-confidence past performance rating compared with Salmon Group's relevant, satisfactory-confidence rating. Wepa also submitted the lower price, at $9.85 million compared with Salmon Group's $10.08 million.
Despite Wepa's advantages in price and past performance, the agency concluded that Salmon Group offered the best value. The Veterans Affairs evaluation found that Salmon Group demonstrated an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and presented a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.
The agency identified four weaknesses in Wepa's technical proposal, citing tasks that were either omitted or addressed with limited detail. The agency determined that Salmon Group's technical superiority outweighed Wepa's slight past performance advantage and justified the roughly 2 percent price premium.
Wepa argued that the best-value decision was inadequately documented because the agency selected the higher-priced proposal despite Wepa's stronger past performance rating and lower price. The General Accountability Office disagreed, finding that the agency had adequately considered the relative merits and costs of the proposals.
The decision noted that when a solicitation permits a best-value tradeoff, an agency may select a higher-priced, technically superior proposal. The agency must reasonably document its business judgments and tradeoffs, but it is not required to provide extensive documentation of every consideration.
The General Accountability Office also rejected Wepa's challenge to the corrective action. Wepa argued that the corrective action was insufficient because the reevaluation ultimately produced the same award result, with Salmon Group retaining the contract while its price and past performance rating remained unchanged.
The General Accountability Office said an agency generally is not required to reconcile a later evaluation with an earlier one. The key question is whether the final evaluation and award decision are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. The office found that the Veterans Affairs had done what it promised by reevaluating the technical proposals and making a new award decision.
The General Accountability Office concluded that Wepa had not demonstrated that the reevaluation, tradeoff decision or corrective action was unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation.
The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424129.2
Publicly Released on: Aug. 18, 2026. Published: Aug 17, 2026
Francisco Javier Rivera, for the protester.
Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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.
GAO Denies American Correctional Healthcare Protest Over Medical Services Pricing Terms
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest by American Correctional Healthcare Inc., a small business in Fort Worth, Texas, challenging the pricing terms of a solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons for comprehensive medical services at the federal correctional institution in Cumberland, Maryland.
The July 6 decision, which sought a single contract for specialized medical services that cannot be provided on site. American Correctional Healthcare, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency unreasonably selected
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest by American Correctional Healthcare Inc., a small business in Fort Worth, Texas, challenging the pricing terms of a solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons for comprehensive medical services at the federal correctional institution in Cumberland, Maryland.
The July 6 decision, which sought a single contract for specialized medical services that cannot be provided on site. American Correctional Healthcare, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency unreasonably selectedMedicare rates for CBSA 51, covering rural West Virginia, as the pricing benchmark.
The company said the benchmark was inappropriate because about 90% of the services it provides under the incumbent contract are performed at Maryland hospitals, which use a different Medicare rate-setting methodology. It also noted that its West Virginia services were provided at a hospital in Morgantown, which is in a different CBSA.
The Bureau of Prisons said it selected CBSA 51 because Maryland uses an unusual Medicare reimbursement formula that differs from other states, while West Virginia uses a conventional rate-setting process. The agency also noted that Cumberland is located on the West Virginia border and that medical services under the incumbent contract have been provided by hospitals in Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
GAO found the agency's use of CBSA 51 reasonable for establishing a common pricing benchmark. The solicitation did not require offerors to use the same hospitals or providers as the incumbent and allowed them to propose their own provider networks.
GAO also found that the benchmark did not restrict offerors' actual pricing. Instead, offerors were required to express proposed prices as a discount from or premium to the CBSA 51 Medicare rates. The rates were to serve as a common basis for comparing proposals, not as contractual reimbursement rates.
The decision also rejected the protester's argument that differences between Maryland and West Virginia Medicare rates could create unfair pricing risks. GAO said agencies are not required to eliminate all pricing risk and found that all offerors faced the same potential risks and had sufficient information to compete intelligently.
"Competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest," GAO said, concluding that American Correctional Healthcare had not shown that it was uniquely or unfairly prejudiced by the agency's choice of benchmark.
GAO denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424391
Publicly Released on: July 14, 2026. Published: July 6, 2026
H. Todd Whay, Esq., and Ian Cronogue, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester.
Loneryl Burns, Esq., William D. Robinson, Esq., Kristina Sullivan, Esq., Clint Gerdine, Esq., and David M. Tatarsky, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies AOC Applied Solutions Protest Over Navy Engineering Task Order
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by AOC Applied Solutions LLC, Ashburn, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Navy's decision to exclude the company's proposal from competition for an engineering services task order.
The Navy issued the solicitation in October 2025 under its SeaPort Next Generation contract vehicle, seeking engineering services through a cost-reimbursable task order with a one-year base period and four one-year options. The solicitation required proposals to be submitted in four volumes, including a contract documentation volume containing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by AOC Applied Solutions LLC, Ashburn, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Navy's decision to exclude the company's proposal from competition for an engineering services task order.
The Navy issued the solicitation in October 2025 under its SeaPort Next Generation contract vehicle, seeking engineering services through a cost-reimbursable task order with a one-year base period and four one-year options. The solicitation required proposals to be submitted in four volumes, including a contract documentation volume containinga Contract Data Requirements List.
The solicitation stated that the contract documentation volume would be evaluated on a pass-or-fail basis and that proposals failing any of its requirements would be eliminated from further consideration.
AOC submitted a proposal but did not include the required Contract Data Requirements List in its contract documentation volume. The Navy consequently rated the volume as a failure and excluded AOC's proposal from the competition.
AOC argued that the omission should have been treated as a minor informality because its cost proposal contained information related to the data deliverables listed in the required document. The company also argued that the omitted information did not affect its price or evaluation.
The Navy disagreed, saying AOC had not provided all the information required by the document. Specifically, the Contract Data Requirements List required offerors to provide both a price group and an estimated total price for each data item, while AOC's cost proposal included only the estimated prices.
In a July 14 decision, GAO found that the Navy reasonably declined to waive the omission. The solicitation permitted, but did not require, the agency to waive minor oversights in contract documentation.
GAO said the missing document was a required and material contract document and that AOC had failed to provide all of the information it was required to submit. The office also rejected AOC's argument that the Navy had acted inconsistently by waiving a separate omission involving a fee table. GAO noted that the complete fee-table information had been included elsewhere in AOC's proposal, unlike the information required by the Contract Data Requirements List.
GAO concluded that the Navy acted within its discretion in refusing to waive AOC's omission and properly eliminated the proposal from the competition. The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO:
Publicly Released on: July 21, 2026. Published: July 14, 2026.
Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Caitlin E. Trevillyan, Esq., and Adel K.H. Mansour, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for the protester.
Theresa Cortese-Fusaro, Esq., and Stephanie Kearney-Quilling, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Adel Mansour, Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for the protester.
GAO Denies AFCO Global Solutions Protest of NIH Call Center Award to CFocus
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by AFCO LLC dba AFCO Global Solutions challenging the issuance of an order to cFocus Software Inc., Miami, Florida, for emergency customer service call center support services for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health.
The NIH issued the solicitation in March using Federal Supply Schedule procedures. The contract called for customer service support for general and emergency calls, paging and teleconferencing, international and domestic calls, and services for hearing-impaired
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by AFCO LLC dba AFCO Global Solutions challenging the issuance of an order to cFocus Software Inc., Miami, Florida, for emergency customer service call center support services for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health.
The NIH issued the solicitation in March using Federal Supply Schedule procedures. The contract called for customer service support for general and emergency calls, paging and teleconferencing, international and domestic calls, and services for hearing-impairedand deaf callers.
The agency received 23 quotations and evaluated them on technical capability and management approach, staffing plan, key personnel qualifications, organizational experience and certifications, as well as price. AFCO and cFocus were both rated capable, but cFocus received a high-confidence rating for technical capability compared with AFCO's some-confidence rating. Both companies received high-confidence ratings for their staffing plans, key personnel and organizational experience.
AFCO quoted $9.35 million, while cFocus quoted $8.5 million. The contracting officer determined that cFocus offered the best value.
AFCO, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency failed to recognize that three individuals identified as key personnel in cFocus's quotation had also signed letters of commitment to AFCO stating they were unavailable to other firms. GAO rejected the allegation, noting that cFocus's quotation contained signed letters of commitment from the same individuals indicating they would be available to perform the work. GAO also said it would not resolve disputes involving private non-compete agreements.
GAO found the agency generally evaluated AFCO's technical quotation reasonably. However, GAO agreed that the agency had treated the companies unequally by assigning AFCO a weakness for failing to address transition at the end of the contract while not assigning the same weakness to cFocus.
GAO nevertheless concluded that AFCO was not competitively prejudiced. cFocus had received four strengths and no weaknesses under the most important technical factor, while AFCO had received three strengths and three weaknesses. Correcting the transition-plan error would not have reasonably resulted in AFCO being evaluated as technically superior to cFocus.
GAO also upheld the agency's staffing evaluation and best-value determination, concluding that AFCO had not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that correcting the evaluation error would have changed the award decision.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424517%2Cb-424517.2
Publicly Released on: July 28, 2026. Published: July 21, 2026.
Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Tracey L. Prueitt, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester.
John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for cFocus Software Incorporated, the intervenor.
Joon K. Hong, Esq., and David A. Lank, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, 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 Accura Reconsideration Request Over Protest Cost Reimbursement
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a reconsideration request from Accura Engineering and Consulting Services Inc., a small business based in Atlanta, Georgia, concerning reimbursement of costs incurred in a bid protest over a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract.
Accura sought reconsideration of a June 23 GAO decision that declined to recommend reimbursement of costs associated with its challenges to the Army's technical evaluation in a competition for quality assurance services. The contract was awarded to Radise International L.C., Barranquitas, Puerto Rico.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a reconsideration request from Accura Engineering and Consulting Services Inc., a small business based in Atlanta, Georgia, concerning reimbursement of costs incurred in a bid protest over a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract.
Accura sought reconsideration of a June 23 GAO decision that declined to recommend reimbursement of costs associated with its challenges to the Army's technical evaluation in a competition for quality assurance services. The contract was awarded to Radise International L.C., Barranquitas, Puerto Rico.
Theprocurement, conducted as a small-business set-aside, sought quality assurance services to monitor and oversee construction contractors building facilities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The solicitation called for a best-value tradeoff based on technical approach, past performance and price.
In its original protest, Accura challenged several aspects of the Army's evaluation, including the technical approach, past performance, price evaluation and best-value decision. During an outcome-prediction alternative dispute resolution conference in February, GAO advised that it would likely sustain Accura's challenges to the price evaluation and best-value tradeoff because the Army failed to consider option-year prices and did not perform a required price-realism analysis for the seed task order.
The Army subsequently took corrective action, and GAO dismissed the protest as academic. The Corps agreed to reimburse Accura's costs associated with the price evaluation and best-value challenges but declined to reimburse costs related to the technical evaluation.
In June, GAO ruled that the technical evaluation challenges were sufficiently separate from the successful price-related grounds to be considered severable. Accura argued in its reconsideration request that GAO had overlooked portions of its protest connecting the price-realism issue to potential technical risks.
GAO rejected that argument, finding that Accura had not demonstrated a material error of fact or law. While Accura had briefly argued that a price-realism analysis could have affected the technical evaluation, GAO said the primary focus of its technical challenges was the Army's decision to rate Radise's proposal outstanding despite identifying a risk involving key personnel.
GAO concluded that the technical and price challenges involved different core facts and legal theories. The request for reconsideration was therefore denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424049.5
Publicly Released on: Aug. 11, 2026. Published: Aug. 5, 2026.
Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Nick Feldstern, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the requester.
Rachel D. Gray, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Absolute Strategic Technologies Protest Over Air Force REMIS Task Order Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- WASHINGTON -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Absolute Strategic Technologies (AST) LLC, Southlake, Texas, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order for Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) support services to Concept Plus LLC, Fairfax, Virginia.
In a decision issued June 18, GAO found that the Air Force reasonably evaluated proposals and properly selected Concept Plus under a best-value competition conducted through the Small Business Enterprise Applications Solutions (SBEAS)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 -- WASHINGTON -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest filed by Absolute Strategic Technologies (AST) LLC, Southlake, Texas, challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a task order for Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) support services to Concept Plus LLC, Fairfax, Virginia.
In a decision issued June 18, GAO found that the Air Force reasonably evaluated proposals and properly selected Concept Plus under a best-value competition conducted through the Small Business Enterprise Applications Solutions (SBEAS)contract vehicle.
The REMIS contract supports a web-based system used to collect and manage maintenance and operational data for Air Force weapon systems.
AST argued that the Air Force failed to credit its proposal with additional technical strengths, improperly evaluated Concept Plus's proposal, failed to conduct a price realism analysis of fixed-price contract line items, treated offerors unequally, and conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff.
GAO rejected those arguments.
The decision found that the solicitation did not require the agency to perform a price realism analysis for firm-fixed-price portions of the contract, noting that cost realism reviews applied only to cost-plus-fixed-fee line items. GAO also concluded that the Air Force reasonably assessed Concept Plus's costs as realistic using government estimates and labor-rate comparisons.
Both AST and Concept Plus received "outstanding" ratings under the staffing approach subfactor. AST earned a strength for proposing a workforce with a high proportion of senior personnel, while Concept Plus received a strength for proposing a dedicated team focused on addressing "technical debt," or deferred software and system maintenance issues.
GAO agreed with the Air Force that Concept Plus's dedicated technical debt team provided a unique benefit not matched by AST's proposal, rejecting claims of unequal treatment.
The watchdog also found no merit in AST's contention that its status as part of the incumbent team warranted additional strengths, reiterating that agencies are not required to give incumbents extra credit.
Finally, GAO upheld the Air Force's best-value determination, concluding that Concept Plus's lower evaluated price of $54.4 million offered greater value than AST's $62.5 million proposal when combined with its technical approach.
The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424321.2%2Cb-424321.3
Publicly Released on: July 13, 2026. Published: June 18, 2026.
Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., Erin L. Felix, Esq., Daniel H. Petkoff, Esq., and Eyasu Yirdaw, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester.
Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Concept Plus, LLC, the intervenor.
Col. Justin A. Silverman, Michael J. Farr, Esq., Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Geoffrey R. Townsend, Esq., Lindsey A. Rasmussen, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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.
