Articles Posted in Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Posted

In Peraton Inc., B-423639 (September 17, 2025), Peraton Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s award of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) for IT lifecycle support services at U.S. Strategic Command. Peraton challenged several aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. It argued that the agency had applied unstated evaluation criteria by placing excessive emphasis on audiovisual (A/V) engineering support requirements that were not clearly highlighted as evaluation factors. Peraton also claimed that the agency improperly double-counted weaknesses, penalizing the same alleged deficiency in both the technical and staffing evaluation areas.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Noblis MSD, LLC, B- 423599 (September 11, 2025), Noblis MSD, the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a technical support services contract to Solute, Inc. Noblis raised several arguments, including that Solute’s proposal was noncompliant because it lacked a signed Standard Form (SF) 33, that the agency unreasonably evaluated past performance and that the award decision ignored known negative performance information. GAO denied the protest in full, finding that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and supported by the record, and offering helpful reminders about intent to be bound, evaluators’ discretion, the “too close at hand” doctrine, and the use of sworn declarations.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Enviremedial Services, Inc., B-423552 (August 28, 2025), Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a facilities maintenance contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., alleging flaws in the agency’s price evaluation, past performance analysis and best-value tradeoff. While GAO dismissed ESI’s unbalanced pricing claim, it sustained the protest based on multiple errors and omissions in the past performance evaluation and the agency’s failure to meaningfully document its source selection rationale.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, B-423267.2 (September 2, 2025), Advanced Computer Learning Company (ACLC), the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a support services and data link training contract to Linchpin Solutions, Inc., challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance and the resulting best-value tradeoff. ACLC argued that it was irrational for the Navy to assign Linchpin the same “Substantial Confidence” rating it received, despite ACLC’s strong performance as the incumbent on the exact requirement.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Protection Strategies Etc. International, LLC, B-423539 (Aug. 25, 2025), Protection Strategies, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), filed a pre-award protest challenging the terms of a solicitation issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) for background investigation support services. The protester objected to the agency’s decision to issue the solicitation as a general small business set-aside, rather than reserving it for SDVOSBs or another small business subcategory. It also raised concerns about the solicitation’s risk structure, particularly the use of a fixed-price contract model and the alleged lack of guaranteed funding for phase-in activities.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Advanced Technology Systems Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-515C (July 16, 2025), Advanced Technology Systems Company (ATSC) protested the Navy’s award of a contract for a nationwide maritime surveillance system in Egypt to Forward Slope, Inc. (FSI). ATSC argued that the Navy’s best value determination was flawed, that it used a vague and inconsistent past performance evaluation framework, and that the agency disregarded highly relevant subcontractor past performance. The Court agreed, finding that ATSC had established multiple procurement errors that were both irrational and prejudicial, even though injunctive relief was denied due to national security concerns.

Continue reading ›

Posted

After the GAO indicated it would likely sustain Perimeter Security Partners’ protest challenging a task order award for access control point maintenance, the Army took corrective action—but only after filing its agency report and participating in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the cognizant GAO attorney.  Perimeter then requested reimbursement of its protest costs, arguing that its grounds were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed in taking corrective action. The GAO agreed, finding that the agency should have acted earlier based on the protest record, and that all protest grounds were intertwined and not severable. (Perimeter Security Partners, LLC—Costs, B-422666.2, Aug. 8, 2025)

The Decision
The GAO granted the protester’s request for reimbursement of costs, ruling that:

  1. Protest Grounds Were Clearly Meritorious: GAO determined that at least two protest grounds—the disparate treatment in past performance evaluation and the flawed best-value tradeoff—were not just viable but likely to result in a sustain. GAO had advised the parties of this in an outcome prediction ADR session, and confirmed that the agency’s evaluation decisions were inconsistent with the record and evaluation criteria.
  2. Corrective Action Was Unduly Delayed: GAO emphasized that corrective action is only considered “prompt” if it’s taken before the agency report is due. Here, the Army waited until after ADR and multiple rounds of briefing. That delay unnecessarily increased protest costs, which GAO seeks to discourage.
  3. Agency’s Arguments Were Unpersuasive: The Army argued that because GAO did not promise cost reimbursement during ADR, it shouldn’t be required to pay. GAO rejected this, clarifying that cost entitlement flows from undue delay, not from ADR participation. The agency also failed to show that any protest grounds were clearly severable, so GAO awarded full cost reimbursement.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. You May Be Entitled to Protest Costs, but Only If the Protest Was Strong: GAO will only recommend cost reimbursement where protest grounds are clearly meritorious, meaning the agency had no defensible legal position and should have seen it early.
  2. Delay Can Cost the Government: If the agency waits until after briefing or ADR to take corrective action, even if it avoids a formal sustain, it may still have to pay the protester’s legal and consultant fees.
  3. All-or-Nothing Depends on Severability: Protesters can recover all costs if their successful claims are intertwined with the rest of the protest. If claims are clearly separate and weak, GAO may reduce or deny reimbursement for those portions.
  4. Participation in ADR Does Not Waive Cost Claims: An agency’s voluntary ADR participation does not shield it from protest cost liability. Protesters should not be discouraged from requesting costs just because ADR was used.
Posted

In Economic Systems, Inc., B-423747, et al. (Aug. 22, 2025), Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys) protested the Department of the Interior’s decision to issue a sole-source purchase order to Government Retirements and Benefits, Inc. for a retirement benefits software platform. EconSys argued that it offered a platform with identical functionality and that the agency’s justification for limiting competition was both flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The protest raised an important procedural issue: how and when a protester can challenge a sole-source announcement, particularly when the agency’s notice includes ambiguous or mixed messaging about vendor responses.

Continue reading ›

Posted

Emissary LLC, the incumbent contractor, protested the Department of Defense’s Washington Headquarters Services’ award of a contract to Gemini Industries for technical support services to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict. (See emissary LLC, B-422388.3, et al., July 29, 2025.) GAO sustained the protest, finding that the agency conducted a flawed technical evaluation, improperly credited past performance, and failed to evaluate the impact of an OCI mitigation plan that altered the awardee’s technical approach. This is a rare case where a protester prevailed on both evaluation and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) grounds, offering a roadmap for what can go wrong when agencies rush or overlook key details in an awardee’s proposal.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In TYD Services, B-423648, July 30, 2025, TYD Services, the incumbent contractor, protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to award a vehicle leasing contract in Qatar to a competitor, Rahman Group, Inc. TYD was excluded from award because its proposal was found technically unacceptable. TYD argued that its past performance as the incumbent should have sufficed, and that the agency should have either overlooked or clarified its missing proposal content. GAO disagreed, providing a harsh reminder that even incumbents must fully comply with all proposal instructions—no matter how minor they may seem.

Continue reading ›