Featured Stories
GAO Denies Prestique Protest of Air Force Roofing Contract Award to Miwok Construction
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Prestique Inc., Dayton, Texas, challenging the U.S. Air Force's rejection of its bid for roof repairs and replacements at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and the subsequent award of the contract to Miwok Construction LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prestique, a small business, argued that the Air Force unreasonably found its proposed manufacturer's warranty unacceptable, resulting in the rejection of its lowest-priced bid under the solicitation.
In an Oct. 19 decision, GAO found that the Air Force properly rejected
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Prestique Inc., Dayton, Texas, challenging the U.S. Air Force's rejection of its bid for roof repairs and replacements at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and the subsequent award of the contract to Miwok Construction LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prestique, a small business, argued that the Air Force unreasonably found its proposed manufacturer's warranty unacceptable, resulting in the rejection of its lowest-priced bid under the solicitation.
In an Oct. 19 decision, GAO found that the Air Force properly rejectedPrestique's bid because its draft warranty failed to demonstrate that the company could provide the coverage required by the invitation for bids.
The solicitation required a 20-year warranty with no dollar limit covering the roof system against hailstones up to 3 inches in diameter and winds of at least 120 miles per hour. It also required bidders to submit a draft manufacturer's warranty clearly showing their ability to meet those terms.
Prestique submitted a draft warranty that did not specify a 20-year coverage period, 3-inch hail protection or 120-mile-per-hour wind coverage. The document also included exceptions for hail damage and wind gusts above an unspecified speed. Its terms described the manufacturer's liability as limited to repairing leaks.
Prestique also submitted a letter from the roofing material manufacturer stating that the roofs could be considered for warranty issuance and that a 20-year warranty with 120-mile-per-hour wind coverage would be issued after final inspection and acceptance. The letter, however, included conditions and referred to 20 hours of coverage for accidental punctures and 3-inch hail damage.
GAO said the letter did not overcome the deficiencies in the draft warranty because warranty issuance remained conditional on a post-installation inspection, and the letter's stated hail coverage did not clearly meet the solicitation's requirements.
Prestique argued that its bid did not expressly take exception to any solicitation terms and included a general statement that it could meet all project requirements. GAO found that a blanket statement of compliance was insufficient because the required documentation did not clearly demonstrate that the proposed warranty met the specifications.
The Air Force issued the invitation for bids on April 20, 2026, seeking roof repairs and replacement for one building, with options covering four additional buildings. Six bidders submitted proposals.
Prestique submitted the lowest-priced bid at $5.16 million for the base requirement and all options. After rejecting it as nonresponsive, the Air Force evaluated Miwok's $5.96 million bid and determined that it met the solicitation requirements. The agency also found that Miwok's price was below the government estimate.
GAO concluded that Prestique's bid was not an unequivocal offer to provide the required services and warranty in accordance with the solicitation. The protest was denied.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424724
Publicly Released on: Oct. 20, 2026. Published: Oct. 19, 2026.
Sean Aly for the protester.
Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., David M. Tucker, Esq., and Major Anthony J. Cooper, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Hatalom Protest Over Navy Courseware Services Proposal Rejection
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Hatalom Corp., Orlando, Florida, challenging the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command's elimination of its proposal from a competition for courseware revision and maintenance services.
In an Oct. 16 decision, GAO found that the Naval Air Systems Command reasonably rejected Hatalom's proposal because the company failed to include a mandatory contract data sheet in its final submission.
The Navy issued the solicitation on Jan. 30 as a competition restricted to service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. The procurement
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Hatalom Corp., Orlando, Florida, challenging the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command's elimination of its proposal from a competition for courseware revision and maintenance services.
In an Oct. 16 decision, GAO found that the Naval Air Systems Command reasonably rejected Hatalom's proposal because the company failed to include a mandatory contract data sheet in its final submission.
The Navy issued the solicitation on Jan. 30 as a competition restricted to service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. The procurementcontemplated multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts and used a three-step evaluation process that included technical and past performance factors.
The solicitation required offerors to submit attachment L-1, which could contain up to three recent and relevant contract references. The Navy planned to use the information to assess both technical capability and past performance. It also warned that failure to meet proposal submission requirements would make an offeror ineligible for award.
Hatalom submitted an initial proposal on April 10 that included the required attachment. However, after the Navy issued a fourth solicitation amendment on July 1, the company submitted a revised proposal without the attachment.
The amendment expressly stated that a new proposal would replace any previously submitted proposal in its entirety. It also warned that failure to submit a complete proposal in response to the amendment would result in elimination from the competition.
The Navy notified Hatalom on July 14 that its proposal was noncompliant and had been eliminated. Hatalom asked the agency to waive the omission as a minor irregularity, arguing that the Navy already possessed the attachment from its April submission and therefore had all the information needed to evaluate its proposal.
The Navy maintained that the July submission superseded the earlier proposal and that attachment L-1 was essential to evaluating technical and past performance qualifications. Without it, the agency said, it could not determine whether the proposal was acceptable.
GAO agreed with the Navy, finding that the solicitation clearly required a complete proposal in response to the final amendment and did not allow previously submitted information to be carried forward.
GAO said offerors are responsible for submitting proposals that clearly demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements. Agencies are not required to supply missing information or infer details that offerors fail to provide.
Although the Navy acknowledged an error in initially stating that a particular Federal Acquisition Regulation provision did not apply, GAO found that the omission was material and that waiving it was within the agency's discretion.
The decision concluded that the Navy had a reasonable basis for rejecting Hatalom's proposal.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424681
Publicly Released on: Oct. 21, 2026. Published: Oct. 16, 2026.
David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester.
Kori Wilson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies CAKAR Protest Against S&D Contract for Turkish Port Services
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by CAKAR Uluslararasi Nakliyat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Mardin, Turkey, challenging the U.S. Transportation Command award of a contract to S&D International Transportation & Logistics Services GmbH, Neusaess, Germany, for stevedoring and related terminal services at ports in Turkey.
CAKAR challenged the TRANSCOM's evaluation of the companies' technical proposals, arguing that its proposal was unfairly rated unacceptable and that the agency overlooked inconsistencies in S&D's proposal and its System for Award
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by CAKAR Uluslararasi Nakliyat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Mardin, Turkey, challenging the U.S. Transportation Command award of a contract to S&D International Transportation & Logistics Services GmbH, Neusaess, Germany, for stevedoring and related terminal services at ports in Turkey.
CAKAR challenged the TRANSCOM's evaluation of the companies' technical proposals, arguing that its proposal was unfairly rated unacceptable and that the agency overlooked inconsistencies in S&D's proposal and its System for AwardManagement registration.
In an Oct. 19 decision, GAO found that TRANSCOM reasonably rejected CAKAR's proposal because the company failed to provide the required hazardous materials certifications for maritime operations.
The solicitation required offerors to provide documentation showing that at least two proposed personnel had been trained and tested to handle hazardous materials under federal regulations or equivalent host-nation requirements. The requirements included training for handling dangerous goods during maritime cargo operations.
CAKAR submitted three Turkish SRC-5 certificates for road transportation of hazardous materials. TRANSCOM determined that the certificates covered highway transport but did not qualify personnel for maritime terminal handling, stevedoring or vessel-loading operations.
CAKAR argued that the certificates covered loading, unloading, packing and handling activities required by the solicitation. The agency countered that Turkish law limits the SRC-5 certification to public highway transportation and that port and vessel operations require maritime-specific training.
GAO agreed with the agency, finding that the solicitation required certifications covering maritime-specific functions under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. The road transportation certificates did not meet that standard.
GAO also rejected CAKAR's allegation that TRANSCOM treated the companies unequally by scrutinizing its certifications while accepting S&D's documentation. The record showed that S&D submitted certifications from Istanbul Technical University Maritime Faculty under the International Maritime Organization's Model Course 1.10, which is designed to meet the required dangerous goods training standards.
The agency reviewed S&D's certifications and reasonably determined that they satisfied the solicitation requirements, GAO said.
TRANSCOM initially selected S&D in April 2026, but took corrective action after CAKAR filed an earlier protest. The agency appointed a new technical evaluation team and reevaluated the proposals.
The revised evaluation rated S&D technically acceptable at an evaluated price of $13.11 million, while CAKAR was rated unacceptable despite an evaluated price of $13.77 million. S&D was identified as the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror.
GAO dismissed CAKAR's remaining allegations concerning S&D's business license, work permit and registration information, finding that CAKAR was not an interested party to pursue them. Because its own proposal was reasonably found technically unacceptable and another offeror also submitted an acceptable proposal, CAKAR would not be in line for award even if those allegations were sustained.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424435.3
Publicly Released on: Oct. 20, 2026. Published: Oct. 19, 2026.
Firat Cakar for the protester.
Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Joseph M. Cappola, Esq., and Sanique J. Balan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, and Stephen W. Adamsky Jr., Esq., United States Transportation Command, 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 Business Integra Protest of Navy Contract Award to HII Mission Technologies
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Business Integra Technology Solutions Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract to HII Mission Technologies Corp., McLean, Virginia, for security, information technology and other support services.
In a May 12, 2026, decision, GAO found that the Navy reasonably evaluated Business Integra's proposal as marginal under the security and general services factor, making the company ineligible for award. GAO dismissed the company's remaining challenges to the evaluation and source selection
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Business Integra Technology Solutions Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, challenging the U.S. Navy's award of a contract to HII Mission Technologies Corp., McLean, Virginia, for security, information technology and other support services.
In a May 12, 2026, decision, GAO found that the Navy reasonably evaluated Business Integra's proposal as marginal under the security and general services factor, making the company ineligible for award. GAO dismissed the company's remaining challenges to the evaluation and source selectiondecision because it was not an interested party to pursue them.
The Navy issued the solicitation on May 12, 2025, seeking support services at six locations across the country. The contract included a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. The agency received four proposals and planned to select the offeror providing the best value based on security and general services, information technology, past performance and cost.
Business Integra received marginal ratings for both its security and general services and information technology proposals, while HII received ratings of good and outstanding, respectively. Both companies received substantial confidence ratings for past performance and were considered very relevant.
The Navy evaluated Business Integra's cost at $166.2 million, compared with $185.3 million for HII. The source selection authority concluded that HII's higher-rated proposal represented the best value, finding that the approximately $19 million savings from selecting Business Integra did not justify the risk of unsuccessful performance.
GAO upheld several weaknesses identified in Business Integra's proposal. Among them, the company's staffing plan was inconsistent about providing five assistant cognizant security officers, as required by the performance work statement. Its organizational chart identified only three full-time equivalent positions for the five required roles.
The Navy also reasonably questioned the company's proposed 72-hour deployment of replacement personnel because its staffing plan did not explain how new employees would obtain access to sensitive compartmented information and special access programs. The agency also found that the proposed security manager's resume did not adequately demonstrate relevant experience supporting special access programs.
Additionally, GAO agreed that Business Integra's proposed schedule for developing and implementing a modernization plan was unrealistic and that its security support program manager appeared assigned responsibilities beyond those required by the solicitation.
GAO also addressed inaccurate legal citations in Business Integra's protest filings, noting that some cited decisions did not exist or did not support the arguments presented. The company attributed the errors to clerical mistakes and supplied corrected citations.
GAO cautioned that unverified use of artificial intelligence tools could result in citations to nonexistent legal decisions and warned that future filings containing such citations could lead to sanctions. It did not impose sanctions in this case.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424244
Publicly Released on: Oct. 21, 2026. Published: May 12, 2026.
Gao Zhang, Business lntegra Technology Solutions, Inc., for the protester.
Kayleigh Scalzo, Esq., Jason Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Homer La Rue,
Esq., and Sela Carrington, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for HII Mission Technologies
Corporation, the intervenor.
James Todd Casey, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Sawdey Solution Services Protest Over Air Force Security Clearance Requirements
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Sawdey Solution Services Inc., Beavercreek, Ohio, challenging security clearance requirements in a U.S. Air Force solicitation for advisory and assistance support services.
In an Oct. 22 decision, GAO found that the Air Force reasonably required offerors to hold specified facility security clearances and safeguarding approvals when submitting proposals because the contract involves highly sensitive national security work that requires immediate access to classified information and systems.
The solicitation, issued
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Sawdey Solution Services Inc., Beavercreek, Ohio, challenging security clearance requirements in a U.S. Air Force solicitation for advisory and assistance support services.
In an Oct. 22 decision, GAO found that the Air Force reasonably required offerors to hold specified facility security clearances and safeguarding approvals when submitting proposals because the contract involves highly sensitive national security work that requires immediate access to classified information and systems.
The solicitation, issuedMay 8, 2026, sought support for the Air Force's strategic deterrence and nuclear integration mission, including work involving international affairs, countering weapons of mass destruction, biodefense and the nuclear enterprise. It required offerors to hold an active top-secret facility clearance with secret-level safeguarding at the time of proposal submission. Firms failing to meet the requirements would be ineligible for award.
Sawdey argued that the requirements unduly restricted competition because it could obtain the necessary approvals after award and before the end of the 30-day transition period. The company also argued that its proposed subcontractor already held the required clearances and should be allowed to satisfy the requirements on its behalf.
The Air Force said the contractor must have access to classified information and operate a government-provided Secret Internet Protocol Router Network laptop at its own facility on the first day of performance. The agency said obtaining new facility clearances and safeguarding approvals can take several months or more than a year, creating unacceptable risks of delays to critical operations.
GAO agreed that the requirements were reasonably related to the agency's needs. It noted that the agency had documented its immediate classified operational requirements and schedule concerns. GAO also found that applicable security regulations require the prime contractor to hold a facility clearance at least equal to the level of classified work, even when the work is delegated to a subcontractor.
The decision also rejected Sawdey's claim that the solicitation was ambiguous because it required the contractor to host secret-level meetings but did not require a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.
GAO explained that a SCIF is required for handling sensitive compartmented information, while hosting secret-level meetings requires a different type of approved secure area. The agency therefore did not create an inconsistency by omitting a SCIF requirement.
GAO concluded that Sawdey's interpretation reflected a misunderstanding of the applicable security requirements and denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424585.2
Publicly Released on: Oct. 30, 2026. Published: Oct. 22, 2026.
Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., and Celeste M. Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester.
Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Sanique J. Balan, Esq., and Ricarto Brazela, 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.
GAO Denies Kenall-Geo Protest Over Army Corps Engineering Services Selection
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Kenall-Geo Engineering JV LLC, a small business based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision not to select the joint venture among the most highly qualified firms for architecture and engineering services in the Caribbean basin.
In an Oct. 20 decision, GAO found that the Army Corps reasonably evaluated the firm's experience, including its reliance on subcontractors, and properly considered the breadth and relevance of its past military construction projects. GAO also found
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by Kenall-Geo Engineering JV LLC, a small business based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision not to select the joint venture among the most highly qualified firms for architecture and engineering services in the Caribbean basin.
In an Oct. 20 decision, GAO found that the Army Corps reasonably evaluated the firm's experience, including its reliance on subcontractors, and properly considered the breadth and relevance of its past military construction projects. GAO also foundthat the agency conducted discussions consistent with the rules governing architecture and engineering procurements.
The Army Corps issued the solicitation on Aug. 6, 2025, seeking firms to support civil works and military construction projects in the Caribbean basin. The procurement called for eight indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, including three reserved for small businesses. Kenall-Geo competed for one of the small-business awards.
The solicitation required firms to submit qualifications statements covering specialized experience and technical competence, professional qualifications, past performance, capacity and knowledge of the locality. Under the most important factor, offerors were asked to provide up to 10 example projects completed within the previous 10 years, with at least six performed as a prime contractor.
The agency received 13 small-business submissions. After an initial review, eight firms were considered highly qualified, including Kenall-Geo. A selection board subsequently identified six firms as the most highly qualified and invited them to discussions. Following discussions and a comparative evaluation, Kenall-Geo ranked last among the six and was not selected for negotiations and award. The Army Corps later conducted a reevaluation as corrective action following another company's agency-level protest, but Kenall-Geo again ranked last.
Kenall-Geo argued that the agency improperly favored firms that performed more work as prime contractors rather than through subcontractors, effectively applying an unstated evaluation criterion. GAO disagreed, finding that the solicitation required consideration of project-team effectiveness, including management structure, subcontractors and prior working relationships. The agency reasonably concluded that Kenall-Geo's heavy reliance on outside firms for core regional infrastructure experience indicated limited prime-contractor involvement and greater execution risk.
The joint venture also challenged the agency's consideration of experience with different types of military facilities and projects in regions with high seismic and hurricane hazards. GAO found that the solicitation identified those types of projects as relevant and that the agency reasonably gave greater weight to firms demonstrating a broader range of applicable experience. The agency did not require offerors to demonstrate experience with every listed facility type.
Finally, GAO rejected Kenall-Geo's argument that the Army Corps conducted inadequate discussions by failing to ask specifically about its reliance on subcontractors. Under the Brooks Act procedures governing architecture and engineering selections, discussions are intended to supplement the agency's knowledge, not to provide the meaningful discussions required in certain other procurements. GAO found that the agency's questions about quality control, coordination with subcontractors and work with local agencies were sufficient.
GAO concluded that the agency's evaluation and selection were reasonable and denied the protest.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424680%2Cb-424680.3
Publicly Released on: Oct. 27, 2026. Published: Oct. 20, 2026.
Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., John M. Mattox, II, Esq., Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., and Kaylee E. Jacobson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester.
Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Bruce E. Groover, Esq., and Dilwyn Piner, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Integrity Management Protest of Secret Service Task Order to ASET Partners
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Integrity Management Consulting Inc., McLean, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secret Service's issuance of a geospatial information and technology services task order to ASET Partners Corp., Alexandria, Virginia.
Integrity Management Consulting argued that the DHS used an ambiguous solicitation requirement when evaluating its corporate experience and improperly assessed its technical proposal and made a flawed best-value award decision.
In an Oct. 1
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied in part and dismissed in part a protest by Integrity Management Consulting Inc., McLean, Virginia, challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secret Service's issuance of a geospatial information and technology services task order to ASET Partners Corp., Alexandria, Virginia.
Integrity Management Consulting argued that the DHS used an ambiguous solicitation requirement when evaluating its corporate experience and improperly assessed its technical proposal and made a flawed best-value award decision.
In an Oct. 1decision, GAO rejected Integrity's argument that the solicitation was unclear about whether a bidder could submit relevant corporate experience performed by a proposed major subcontractor.
The solicitation required bidders to submit at least three and no more than five relevant federal contracts from the previous five years. It specified that the bidder must have held the contract as the prime contractor or performed the relevant work as part of a joint venture.
Integrity submitted five examples, including a project performed by its major subcontractor, which was the incumbent contractor. The agency excluded that example because the subcontractor, rather than Integrity, had performed the work.
Integrity argued that the term "Quoter" was not clearly defined and could include proposed subcontractors. GAO found that the solicitation consistently used the term to refer to the prime contractor holding the Department of Homeland Security's Geospatial Technical Support Services 3.0 blanket purchase agreement. It concluded that the agency's interpretation was the only reasonable reading of the solicitation.
GAO also found that any concern about the lack of a more explicit definition should have been raised before the deadline for submitting quotations, rather than after the award.
The agency assigned Integrity's corporate experience quotation a "Low Confidence" rating, concluding that its experience showed limited technical depth and raised concerns about its understanding of the requirements and ability to perform successfully. Under the solicitation, a low-confidence rating made a vendor ineligible for award without exchanges. The agency did not conduct exchanges.
Integrity also challenged weaknesses assigned to its responses to four technical scenarios and the agency's best-value determination. GAO dismissed those allegations, finding that Integrity was not an interested party because its low-confidence corporate experience rating already made it ineligible for award.
The Secret Service evaluated ASET's quotation as "High Confidence" for both technical scenario responses and corporate experience, at an evaluated price of $20.39 million. Integrity received "Some Confidence" for technical responses and "Low Confidence" for corporate experience, at $18.36 million.
The agency selected ASET after determining that its stronger technical approach and lower risk of unsuccessful performance justified its higher price compared with another highly rated vendor.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424613%2Cb-424613.2
Publicly Released on: Oct. 20, 2026. Published: Oct. 1, 2026.
Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., Katherine A. David, Esq., and Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester.
Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for ASET Partners Corp., the intervenor.
Michael Noyes, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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.
GAO Denies Save the American Communities' Reconsideration Request in DARPA Research Protest
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a reconsideration request from Save the American Communities LLC, a small business based in Thomasville, Georgia, challenging the dismissal of its protest over the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's decision not to select its research proposal.
In an Oct. 27 decision, GAO found that STAC failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law warranting reversal or modification of its Aug. 12 dismissal decision.
The original protest involved a DARPA solicitation under its Small Business Innovation Research program seeking proposals
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a reconsideration request from Save the American Communities LLC, a small business based in Thomasville, Georgia, challenging the dismissal of its protest over the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's decision not to select its research proposal.
In an Oct. 27 decision, GAO found that STAC failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law warranting reversal or modification of its Aug. 12 dismissal decision.
The original protest involved a DARPA solicitation under its Small Business Innovation Research program seeking proposalsto design, build and test security frameworks to protect widely used secure messaging applications. STAC submitted a proposal by the May 13, 2026, deadline but was notified of its non-selection on June 23 through the agency's online portal.
STAC protested on July 10, arguing that DARPA improperly evaluated its proposal and treated concerns about the company's prior experience as a non-responsibility determination that should have been referred to the Small Business Administration for a certificate of competency review.
DARPA requested dismissal after agreeing to take corrective action by reevaluating STAC's proposal. GAO dismissed the protest on Aug. 12, finding that the planned reevaluation rendered the dispute academic because it could change the agency's earlier decision.
In seeking reconsideration, STAC argued that the reevaluation did not resolve whether DARPA had improperly failed to refer the alleged non-responsibility determination to the Small Business Administration. The company also contended that the agency had not committed to making such a referral if the same concerns arose again.
GAO rejected the arguments, explaining that a reevaluation could result in STAC being found responsible and potentially selected for an award, leaving no non-responsibility determination requiring a referral. Continuing to address the earlier allegations would therefore serve no practical purpose.
The office also noted that an agency's commitment to reevaluate proposals and make a new selection decision generally makes challenges to the previous evaluation academic, even when the corrective action does not specifically address every protest allegation.
GAO said STAC may file a new protest if the agency's implementation of its corrective action provides a valid basis for challenging the reevaluation. However, objections based only on anticipated agency action would be premature.
GAO denied the reconsideration request.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-424642.3
Publicly Released on: Oct. 28, 2026. Published: Oct. 27, 2026.
James Poole, for the protester.
Seiji Ohashi, Esq., and Hampton J. Tignor, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency.
Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
