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 Booker DiMaio Protest Over GSA Technical Evaluation in Project Management BPA Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a bid protest filed by Booker DiMaio LLC, a small business located in Sykesville, Maryland. The protest challenged the General Services Administration's (GSA) evaluation of Booker's quotation under a request for quotations (No. 47HAA024Q0020). The RFQ sought to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) for project management support services.
Booker protested the GSA's determination that its technical quotation was ineligible for award. The GAO, in its decision dated March 17, 2025, and publicly released in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a bid protest filed by Booker DiMaio LLC, a small business located in Sykesville, Maryland. The protest challenged the General Services Administration's (GSA) evaluation of Booker's quotation under a request for quotations (No. 47HAA024Q0020). The RFQ sought to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) for project management support services.
Booker protested the GSA's determination that its technical quotation was ineligible for award. The GAO, in its decision dated March 17, 2025, and publicly released ina redacted version, found the agency's evaluation to be reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
According to the GAO decision, the RFQ, issued on May 3, 2024, was a small business set-aside aimed at establishing BPAs with at least two responsible vendors offering the best value for project management support over a five-year ordering period, with a potential total value of $75 million. The evaluation criteria included technical understanding, management plan, and past performance, with technical understanding being more important than price.
The GSA's Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) rated Booker's technical understanding as "marginal," citing a deficiency for failing to adequately demonstrate knowledge of smart building program components within a specific task area. The TEB concluded that Booker's quotation lacked sufficient detail regarding its experience and expertise in Building, Monitoring, and Control (BMC) systems and smart building technologies, describing it as generic. As a result of this marginal rating in the most important factor, Booker's quotation was not evaluated further.
In its protest, Booker argued that the assigned deficiency was unreasonable and that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria. However, the GAO found the GSA's evaluation reasonable, stating that Booker's quotation did not sufficiently address the smart building support task area by emphasizing generalized project management services without demonstrating an understanding of the specific requirements.
The GAO also addressed Booker's argument that the award decision was not properly documented, finding that under the streamlined procedures for establishing BPAs under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the documentation was sufficient for review. The GAO considered the agency's post-protest explanations credible and consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation record.
Ultimately, the GAO denied the protest, concluding that even if the other significant weaknesses identified in Booker's quotation were disregarded, the presence of the deficiency meant Booker would not have achieved an "acceptable" rating in technical understanding, a prerequisite for further evaluation and potential award. Therefore, Booker could not demonstrate competitive prejudice.
The decision was prepared by Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of the GAO's Office of the General Counsel, with Patrick Kernan, Esq., representing Booker DiMaio, LLC, and Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., representing the General Services Administration.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423224
Publicly Released on: Mar 26, 2025 Published: Mar 17, 2025
Patrick Kernan, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC, for the protester.
Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
California Firm's Bid Protest Against Tennessee Rival Partially Denied in Fort Moore Contract Dispute
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- In a recent decision, the General Accountability Office (GAO) has partially denied and partially dismissed a bid protest filed by Zero Waste Solutions Inc., a women-owned small business based in Concord, California, against the U.S. Army's award of a refuse collection and recycling contract at Fort Moore, Georgia. The contract, valued at $16,160,550, was awarded to Street Legal Industries Inc., a women-owned small business from Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The dispute arose following the Army's invitation for bids, which sought a contractor to manage refuse collection and recycling
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- In a recent decision, the General Accountability Office (GAO) has partially denied and partially dismissed a bid protest filed by Zero Waste Solutions Inc., a women-owned small business based in Concord, California, against the U.S. Army's award of a refuse collection and recycling contract at Fort Moore, Georgia. The contract, valued at $16,160,550, was awarded to Street Legal Industries Inc., a women-owned small business from Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The dispute arose following the Army's invitation for bids, which sought a contractor to manage refuse collection and recyclingservices at the Fort Moore installation. Zero Waste Solutions, whose bid was $19,849,306, challenged the award, arguing that Street Legal Industries' bid was nonresponsive and that the Army erred in its affirmative responsibility determination.
Zero Waste Solutions contended that Street Legal's bid failed to demonstrate compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-14, which limits subcontracting to non-similarly situated entities to no more than 50% of the contract value. Specifically, the California company argued that Street Legal's teaming agreement with Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. (MDI), a non-women-owned small business, indicated an intent to exceed this limit.
However, the GAO denied this portion of the protest. The GAO stated that Street Legal's bid did not, on its face, demonstrate an intent to violate the FAR clause, and the Army's assessment that the bid was responsive was deemed reasonable. The GAO ruled that the statement "compliance with [FAR clause] 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting will be achieved over the life of the contract" was not a direct violation of the clause.
Additionally, Zero Waste Solutions challenged the Army's affirmative responsibility determination, claiming that Street Legal did not meet the general responsibility standards outlined in FAR subsection 9.104-1. This part of the protest was dismissed by the GAO, which typically does not consider affirmative responsibility determinations unless definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met or serious concerns about the contracting officer's decision exist. The GAO found that neither exception applied in this case.
The GAO's decision, issued on March 13, 2025, by General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, underscores the complexities of federal contracting and the importance of adherence to regulatory requirements. The contract for refuse collection and recycling services at Fort Moore will proceed with Street Legal Industries.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423214.2%2Cb-423214.3
Publicly Released on: Mar 25, 2025 Published: Mar 13, 2025
Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John Tanner, Esq., and Jesse Cardinal, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for the protester.
Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Dana Molinari, Esq., and Jane Jung Hyoun Han, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for Street Legal Industries, Inc., the intervenor.
Major Joseph C. Van Dusen, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Colorado Firm Protests Space Traffic System Contract Award to Colorado Springs Rival
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Kayhan Space Corp., based in Lafayette, Colorado, has filed a protest with the General Accountability Office (GAO) challenging the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) award of a contract to Slingshot Aerospace, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado. The contract is for the development of a presentation layer for the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS).
TraCSS is a system designed to ingest, archive, process, and disseminate space situational awareness data and products, in line with Space Policy Directive-3, which
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Kayhan Space Corp., based in Lafayette, Colorado, has filed a protest with the General Accountability Office (GAO) challenging the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) award of a contract to Slingshot Aerospace, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado. The contract is for the development of a presentation layer for the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS).
TraCSS is a system designed to ingest, archive, process, and disseminate space situational awareness data and products, in line with Space Policy Directive-3, whichaims to manage increasing commercial activity and congestion in space.
Kayhan Space Corp. alleges that NOAA conducted an unreasonable and unequal evaluation of proposals, that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity, and that Slingshot Aerospace imposed an impermissible condition upon the agency and proposed an unbalanced price.
The RFP sought a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials contract for a one-year base period with four one-year option periods. Award was to be based on best value, considering price and two non-price factors: demonstrated prior experience and technical capabilities. Slingshot Aerospace's proposal was rated "high confidence" in both non-price factors and offered a total evaluated price of $14,678,707, while Kayhan Space Corp.'s proposal was rated "some confidence" in both categories and had a total evaluated price of $18,081,864.
Kayhan Space Corp. argued that the agency's evaluation of its demonstrated prior experience and technical capabilities was flawed, citing unequal treatment and misinterpretations of its proposal. The company also claimed that the solicitation was ambiguous regarding past performance evaluation and that Slingshot Aerospace's proposal included an impermissible condition related to software licenses and unbalanced pricing.
However, the GAO denied the protest. The GAO found that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's terms. The GAO also concluded that the solicitation did not require a past performance evaluation and that Slingshot Aerospace's proposal did not impose an impermissible condition. Furthermore, the GAO determined that the agency adequately evaluated Slingshot Aerospace's pricing for unbalance.
The GAO's decision, issued on March 12, 2025, by General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, affirms NOAA's award to Slingshot Aerospace, Inc., allowing the company to proceed with developing the presentation layer for the TraCSS system.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423221%2Cb-423221.2
Publicly Released on: Mar 26, 2025 Published: Mar 12, 2025
Jonathan Perrone, Esq., Joshua Sather, Esq., and Timothy Turner, Esq., Whitcomb Selinsky, PC, for the protester.
Carla Weiss, Esq., Logan Kemp, Esq., and Annie Hudgins, Esq., Nichols Liu, LLP, for Slingshot Aerospace, Inc., the intervenor.
Jillian Stern, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
California Construction Firm Loses Bid Protest Over Late Army Proposal
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Martin Brothers Construction Inc. (MBC), a small business headquartered in Sacramento, California, failed in its protest against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The protest challenged the Army's decision to exclude MBC from consideration for a large horizontal construction contract in the Galveston District and Southwestern Division. The core issue of the protest was MBC's late submission of a revised proposal.
The Army Corps of Engineers issued a request for proposals seeking contractors for a multi-award task order contract valued at up to $7 billion. MBC, after initially
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Martin Brothers Construction Inc. (MBC), a small business headquartered in Sacramento, California, failed in its protest against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The protest challenged the Army's decision to exclude MBC from consideration for a large horizontal construction contract in the Galveston District and Southwestern Division. The core issue of the protest was MBC's late submission of a revised proposal.
The Army Corps of Engineers issued a request for proposals seeking contractors for a multi-award task order contract valued at up to $7 billion. MBC, after initiallybeing invited to participate in the second phase of the bidding process, submitted its revised proposal after the deadline. The Army subsequently informed MBC that their late submission disqualified them from further consideration.
MBC argued that the Army was at fault for their late submission, claiming the agency failed to ensure they received crucial evaluation notices via email. The company stated the email went to their spam folder. They also contested the timeliness of the notification regarding the final amendment that extended the proposal deadline.
The General Accountability Office (GAO) denied MBC's protest. The GAO determined that the Army had acted appropriately in its communication with MBC. The agency used the email address provided by MBC, and the fact that the email ended up in the firm's spam folder was not the Army's responsibility.
The GAO also rejected MBC's argument that the Army should have used alternative communication methods, stating there was no requirement for the agency to do so. Regarding the notification of the amendment, the GAO pointed out that MBC had received the email, regardless of its placement in the spam folder.
The GAO concluded that the Army had fulfilled its communication obligations and that MBC's late submission was not due to any improper action by the agency. Consequently, the protest was denied, and the Army's decision to exclude MBC from the contract award was upheld.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-420797.7
Publicly Released on: Mar 17, 2025 Published: Mar 7, 2025
Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., and Dana Molinari, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester.
Clark Bartee, Esq., Department of the Army, 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.
