Posted

Commercial Dreams, Custom Reality: GAO Rejects Commercial Item Challenge to Air Force Armament Tester RFP

by

In Marvin Test Solutions, Inc., B-423928; B-423928.2 (Jan. 28, 2026), Marvin Test Solutions filed a pre-award protest challenging the Department of the Air Force’s RFP for a common armament tester (CAT-F) system for F-15, F-16 and A-10 fighter aircraft. Marvin argued that the agency was required to conduct the procurement as a commercial item acquisition under FAR Part 12 and that the solicitation was unduly restrictive of competition, particularly with respect to a minimum screen size requirement for the handheld operational-level (O-level) tester.

Marvin asserted that it already sells a handheld tester that qualifies as a commercial item under the FAR, is currently used by Air National Guard and foreign governments for the purpose of testing armaments on the exact aircraft at issue in this procurement, and that meets the agency’s actual minimum needs. Marvin argued that the Air Force was therefore required—at least for the O-level portion of the requirement—to use commercial item procedures. GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part, providing a helpful roadmap for two common pre-award protest arguments: (1) failure to procure as commercial items, and (2) unduly restrictive requirements.

The Decision
GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part, ruling that:

  1. The Screen Size Requirement Was Not Unduly Restrictive: Marvin challenged the RFP’s requirement that the O-level tester have a screen of at least 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches. Marvin’s existing tester had a smaller 1-inch by 2-inch screen, but Marvin argued that it could still display all necessary information on a single screen and that the Air Force’s true requirement was simply to avoid scrolling between screens. GAO disagreed. The record showed that the Air Force’s requirement development process—including site visits and user input—identified usability concerns with small screens in flightline environments. The agency explained that larger screens improve readability, training efficiency and operational effectiveness when handling armament testing for fighter aircraft. GAO concluded that the screen size requirement was reasonably related to legitimate agency needs and was not unduly restrictive of competition. Importantly, GAO noted that the difference was not trivial—the required screen had nearly double the viewable area of Marvin’s existing tester.
  2. The Commercial Item Challenge Failed Because the Product Did Not Meet the Requirement: Marvin argued that its tester met the FAR definition of a commercial item on multiple independent bases, including prior DoD purchases and sales to commercial aerospace firms. Marvin contended that the Air Force was required to use FAR Part 12 procedures. GAO, however, did not reach the broader commerciality arguments. Instead, GAO focused on a threshold issue—Marvin’s existing tester did not meet the Air Force’s reasonable minimum requirements (including the screen size requirement). Moreover, Marvin did not assert that it could make minor or commercially customary modifications to meet those requirements. Thus, because Marvin’s product did not satisfy the agency’s minimum needs, GAO found no basis to conclude that the Air Force was required to procure the requirement as a commercial item.
  3. Marvin Was Not an Interested Party to Pursue Remaining Commercial Arguments: Having concluded that Marvin’s tester could not meet the agency’s reasonable requirements, GAO dismissed the remainder of Marvin’s commercial item arguments for lack of interested party status. Even if GAO agreed that the Air Force should have used FAR Part 12 procedures, Marvin would not be eligible for award because its product did not comply with the minimum screen size requirement. Without a viable path to award, Marvin lacked the direct economic interest required to pursue further protest grounds.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Commercial Item Protests Begin—and Often End—With Minimum Requirements: Even if a product qualifies as a commercial item under FAR 2.101, the key question is whether it meets the agency’s reasonable minimum needs.  If it does not—and cannot be modified through minor or customary commercial modifications—the protest will likely fail.
  2. Agencies Have Broad Discretion to Define Their Needs: GAO gives substantial deference to agencies in defining technical requirements, particularly where safety, mission readiness, or operational effectiveness are implicated.  This is an extremely high bar, and a protester must show that a requirement is unreasonable, not merely that a different approach could work.
  3. The “Palantir” Argument Has Limits: While statute and Federal Circuit precedent require agencies to consider whether requirements can be modified to permit commercial acquisition, that obligation does not require agencies to materially relax legitimate needs. GAO will not compel an agency to accept a product that does not meet reasonable performance requirements.
  4. Interested Party Status Can Be Outcome Determinative: Where a protester’s product cannot meet a solicitation’s reasonable requirements, GAO may dismiss broader solicitation challenges because the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice.