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 Protest Against U.S. Space Force Contract
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by BTAS Inc., Beavercreek, Ohio, concerning a task order awarded to Credence Management Solutions LLC, McLean, Virginia. The General Services Administration Federal Acquisition Service issued the task order on behalf of the U.S. Space Force for command staff support services. The decision was issued on Feb. 5, 2025.
BTAS Inc., a small business, challenged the agency's evaluation of both technical and cost proposals, arguing that it was unreasonable.
The GAO reviewed the protest and found no merit in BTAS Inc.'s
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by BTAS Inc., Beavercreek, Ohio, concerning a task order awarded to Credence Management Solutions LLC, McLean, Virginia. The General Services Administration Federal Acquisition Service issued the task order on behalf of the U.S. Space Force for command staff support services. The decision was issued on Feb. 5, 2025.
BTAS Inc., a small business, challenged the agency's evaluation of both technical and cost proposals, arguing that it was unreasonable.
The GAO reviewed the protest and found no merit in BTAS Inc.'sarguments. One of the primary contentions from BTAS Inc. was that the GSA's cost realism evaluation improperly failed to use the government's independent cost estimate and disregarded a stated total evaluated price range in the solicitation. BTAS Inc. believed this led to an uneven competitive playing field. However, the GAO found that the agency reasonably relied on other comparisons, such as industry and historical data, to establish cost realism, consistent with federal regulations. The GAO also noted that the solicitation's estimated TEP range was merely a guide and not a strict requirement for bids to fall within.
Additionally, BTAS Inc. argued that its technical proposal was unreasonably downgraded in the reevaluation process, claiming it deserved additional strengths, including a significant strength, which would have warranted an "exceptional" rating rather than "good." The GAO acknowledged that reevaluations might differ from initial assessments, but emphasized that the key factor is whether the final evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, not merely consistent with prior evaluations. The GAO concluded that the agency's technical evaluation of BTAS Inc.'s proposal was reasonable and in line with the solicitation's terms, despite the change in the number of assigned strengths from an earlier evaluation.
Based on its review, the Government Accountability Office denied the protest, affirming the award to Credence Management Solutions LLC.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422624.2%2Cb-422624.6
Publicly Released on: June 13, 2025 Published: Feb. 5, 2025
William Pannier, Esq., Pannier Law, PC, for the protester.
J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Jr., Esq., and David L.W. Smith, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Credence Management Solutions, LLC, the intervenor.
William R. Black, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Denies Protest Against NOAA Web Services Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has announced on June 17, 2025, that it has denied a protest filed by Mobomo LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Mobomo LLC, a small business, challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's issuance of an order to ResolveSoft Inc., Elkridge, Maryland, also a small business. The contract is for web modernization and maintenance services.
Mobomo LLC protested NOAA's evaluation of quotations and its conduct of exchanges with vendors. The Government Accountability Office has denied the protest, concluding
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has announced on June 17, 2025, that it has denied a protest filed by Mobomo LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Mobomo LLC, a small business, challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's issuance of an order to ResolveSoft Inc., Elkridge, Maryland, also a small business. The contract is for web modernization and maintenance services.
Mobomo LLC protested NOAA's evaluation of quotations and its conduct of exchanges with vendors. The Government Accountability Office has denied the protest, concludingthat the evaluation was reasonable, even-handed, and consistent with the stated criteria.
NOAA issued a request for quotations for services to maintain and enhance the National Marine Fisheries Service's flagship website. The award was to be based on a best-value tradeoff, with non-price factors being significantly more important than price. After an initial award and subsequent protest, NOAA undertook corrective action, reevaluating proposals.
In the reevaluation, both Mobomo LLC and ResolveSoft Inc. received "some confidence" ratings across all non-price factors (technical approach, staffing and management approach/key personnel, and experience). ResolveSoft Inc.'s total evaluated price was $11,470,934, slightly higher than Mobomo LLC's $11,030,164.
NOAA found ResolveSoft Inc.'s quotation to offer the best value, citing its technically superior approach, senior key personnel, and extensive experience as worth the small price premium. The Government Accountability Office found no basis to challenge NOAA's assessment. Mobomo LLC's claims of unequal treatment in the evaluation, including how its proposed use of certain software and certifications were viewed, were also rejected. The Government Accountability Office emphasized that the agency properly considered experience and did not improperly weight specific tasks.
Ultimately, the Government Accountability Office found that NOAA's failure to engage in exchanges with Mobomo LLC as part of its corrective action did not constitute unequal discussions and did not cause competitive prejudice to the protester.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423027.2%2Cb-423027.3
Publicly Released on: June 23, 2025 Published: June 17, 2025
Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Jeremy S. Scholtes, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester.
Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Lauren M. Williams, Esq., and Andrew P. Frank, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Affirms U.S. Navy Sole-Source Award for Medical Training
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has announced on June 27, 2025, that it has denied a protest filed by Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corp., Virginia Beach, Virginia. Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, challenged the U.S. Navy's sole-source, fixed-price purchase order to Tactical Electronics and Military Supply LLC, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. The contract is for tactical first responder medical training for military troops prior to deployment.
Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has announced on June 27, 2025, that it has denied a protest filed by Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corp., Virginia Beach, Virginia. Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, challenged the U.S. Navy's sole-source, fixed-price purchase order to Tactical Electronics and Military Supply LLC, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. The contract is for tactical first responder medical training for military troops prior to deployment.
Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporationhad argued that the U.S. Navy's sole-source award was unreasonable and violated procurement laws. However, the Government Accountability Office has found that the U.S. Navy reasonably determined there was only one source available to meet the urgent need for this specialized medical training.
The U.S. Navy's Expeditionary Exploitation Unit-1 required specific medical training for military personnel operating in battlefield and remote care scenarios, emphasizing trauma treatment in hostile environments. Due to unforeseen delays in funding, the U.S. Navy faced an urgent need to ensure troops received this training before their scheduled deployments, with an immovable training start date of March 24, 2025.
The U.S. Navy initiated market research in December 2024, contacting several vendors, including Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation and Tactical Electronics and Military Supply LLC. While Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation submitted its information in late February 2025, Tactical Electronics and Military Supply LLC was the only vendor to provide a complete capability statement and pricing in response to the initial market research request. Faced with mission-critical training and a lack of time for a full competitive process, the U.S. Navy determined that Tactical Electronics and Military Supply LLC was the sole available source to meet the urgent deadline.
The GAO has concluded that the Navy's justification for the sole-source award based on urgency was reasonable, particularly given the operational risks to troop safety if the training were delayed.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423398
Publicly Released on: June 30, 2025 Published: June 27, 2025
Dennis Kelly for the protester.
Toya H. Davis, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Affirms U.S. Air Force Dual Signature Requirement in Small Business Innovation Research Solicitation
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Compotech Inc., Brewer, Maine, challenging the terms of a U.S. Air Force Small Business Innovation Research Phase II solicitation. Compotech had argued that the solicitation's requirement for unique signatures from both a customer and an end-user on a mandatory customer memorandum was unduly restrictive and immaterial.
The protest, filed under topic AFX24.5 concerning innovative defense-related dual purpose technologies/solutions, was denied by the GAO in a decision dated June 12, 2025.
The U.S. Air Force's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest filed by Compotech Inc., Brewer, Maine, challenging the terms of a U.S. Air Force Small Business Innovation Research Phase II solicitation. Compotech had argued that the solicitation's requirement for unique signatures from both a customer and an end-user on a mandatory customer memorandum was unduly restrictive and immaterial.
The protest, filed under topic AFX24.5 concerning innovative defense-related dual purpose technologies/solutions, was denied by the GAO in a decision dated June 12, 2025.
The U.S. Air Force'sSBIR program aims to advance scientific and technical knowledge and develop prototypes with clear defense and commercialization potential. For Phase II proposals, a customer memorandum was required, demonstrating interest from an Air Force organization. This memorandum had to be signed by a distinct customer, who manages future procurement and funding, and an end-user, who is the direct operational beneficiary of the proposed solution. Proposals lacking these required unique signatures were to be deemed unacceptable.
Compotech contended that a single signature should suffice and that the two-signature requirement was not material, as it didn't directly affect price, quality, quantity, or delivery.
The GAO dismissed the argument that the requirement was unduly restrictive, noting that Compotech itself was capable of meeting the requirement and had, in fact, submitted a memorandum with both unique signatures after the protest was filed. This indicated that Compotech was not an "interested party" in challenging this particular aspect.
Regarding the materiality of the signatures, the GAO affirmed the U.S. Air Force's position. The agency explained that the SBIR program is not a traditional procurement but rather focuses on identifying and developing solutions for unmet needs with commercial application. The customer memorandum, with its dual signatures, serves as crucial evidence of a validated defense need and the potential for commercialization, which are key evaluation criteria. The signatures formalize the commitment of both the customer and the end-user, safeguarding the interests of both the U.S. Air Force and the awardee in successful technology development and transition.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423368
Publicly Released on: June 20, 2025 Published: June 12, 2025
Jason A. Blindauer, Blindauer Law, PLLC, for the protester.
Hector Rivera-Hernandez, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
