GAO Bid Protests
Here's a look at news stories involving federal bid protest decisions issued by the GAO General Counsel
Featured Stories
Virginia Small Business Loses Protest Over Ohio Firm's Contract Award
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Chase Supply Inc., a small business operating as Chase Defense Partners from Hampton, Virginia. The protest challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract to Crushproof Tubing Co., a small business based in McComb, Ohio, for air duct hose assemblies.
The dispute arose from Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7MX-25-24-R-X017, which sought suppliers for specific National Stock Numbers (NSNs) for the DLA. Chase Supply argued that the DLA improperly waived the First Article Testing (FAT)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- The General Accountability Office (GAO) has denied a protest filed by Chase Supply Inc., a small business operating as Chase Defense Partners from Hampton, Virginia. The protest challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract to Crushproof Tubing Co., a small business based in McComb, Ohio, for air duct hose assemblies.
The dispute arose from Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7MX-25-24-R-X017, which sought suppliers for specific National Stock Numbers (NSNs) for the DLA. Chase Supply argued that the DLA improperly waived the First Article Testing (FAT)approval requirement for Crushproof Tubing, giving the Ohio company an unfair advantage.
According to the GAO's decision, the RFQ required vendors to have FAT approval in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.209-3. However, the FAR clause also allows the government to waive this requirement if the vendor has previously supplied and the government has accepted identical or similar items.
The DLA awarded Chase Supply a contract for one NSN, and Crushproof Tubing a contract for another. The contracting officer waived Crushproof Tubing's FAT requirement based on the company's prior successful delivery of similar items under a previous contract, supplied by Nationwide Tarps, Inc.
Chase Supply contested this waiver, arguing that the previous FAT approval was obtained under a "less rigorous" standard. The GAO, however, found the agency's decision to be reasonable and in accordance with applicable procurement law and regulation.
The GAO emphasized that it does not reevaluate proposals but examines whether the agency's judgment was reasonable. The decision highlighted that the previous contract's goods were accepted, and that the items were manufactured by the same supplier, and met the same military specification.
The GAO also stated that it does not consider issues relating to the acceptance of a first article or the approval of a pre-production sample, as such matters concern contract administration, a matter not within the purview of its bid protest function.
Ultimately, the GAO denied Chase Supply's protest, concluding that the DLA's waiver of the FAT requirement for Crushproof Tubing was justified based on the company's prior performance and FAT approval.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423244
Publicly Released on: Mar 14, 2025 Published: Mar 11, 2025
Haley M. Sirokman, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester.
Katherine D. Sweat, Esq., Adam J. Heer, Esq., and John J. Pritchard, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Ohio Medical Firm Loses Protest Over Army Contract Exclusion
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Sterling Medical Associates Inc., based in Cincinnati, Ohio, has had its protest denied by the General Accountability Office (GAO). The company challenged the Army's decision to exclude its proposal from consideration for a task order under RFP No. W9114F-22-R-0002. This contract aimed to provide medical services to supplement staff at military treatment facilities and health clinics. Sterling Medical disputed the Army's evaluation of its past performance.
The Army sought a contractor to supply healthcare workers to supplement medical staff at facilities outside the Continental
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Sterling Medical Associates Inc., based in Cincinnati, Ohio, has had its protest denied by the General Accountability Office (GAO). The company challenged the Army's decision to exclude its proposal from consideration for a task order under RFP No. W9114F-22-R-0002. This contract aimed to provide medical services to supplement staff at military treatment facilities and health clinics. Sterling Medical disputed the Army's evaluation of its past performance.
The Army sought a contractor to supply healthcare workers to supplement medical staff at facilities outside the ContinentalUnited States. The contract was to be awarded based on a best-value tradeoff, with past performance being a significant factor. The Army's evaluation process involved considering past performance information from various sources, including contractor performance assessment reporting systems and responses to questionnaires.
Sterling Medical argued that the Army's evaluation of its past performance was flawed. Specifically, the company contested the Army's consideration of a dental services task order and the agency's weighting of negative comments and ratings in performance reports.
The GAO denied Sterling Medical's protest. The GAO found that the Army reasonably considered past performance information from multiple sources, as allowed by the solicitation. The Army's evaluation included information from questionnaires and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, focusing on recent and relevant performance.
The GAO concluded that the Army's assessment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's criteria. The Army's decision to assign Sterling Medical a "limited confidence" rating was justified, based on the company's "poor and worsening performance" across multiple contracts. The GAO did not find any basis to question the Army's evaluation or its decision to exclude Sterling Medical's proposal.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421659.6
Publicly Released on: Mar 19, 2025 Published: Mar 7, 2025
Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Erin R. Davis, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., Alexander Gorelik, Esq., Stephen G. Darby, Esq., and Celeste Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, for the protester.
Major Joshua A. Reyes, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Colorado Firm's Protest Over Space Force Contract Awards Denied
By Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Tech7 Consulting LLC, of Monument, Colorado, has lost its protest against the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, regarding the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for advisory and assistance services. The solicitation, RFP No. FA8819-24-R-B002, anticipated awarding "approximately ten" contracts.
Tech7 challenged the Air Force's evaluation and source selection process, arguing that the agency should have held discussions with Tech7 to allow them to submit additional cost/price information. The firm's initial proposal lacked
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Tech7 Consulting LLC, of Monument, Colorado, has lost its protest against the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, regarding the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for advisory and assistance services. The solicitation, RFP No. FA8819-24-R-B002, anticipated awarding "approximately ten" contracts.
Tech7 challenged the Air Force's evaluation and source selection process, arguing that the agency should have held discussions with Tech7 to allow them to submit additional cost/price information. The firm's initial proposal lackednecessary subcontractor cost/price details, leading to its exclusion from the award process.
The solicitation explicitly stated that the government "may award without discussions," and that discussions would only occur if deemed in the government's best interest. The Air Force determined that conducting discussions would not be an efficient use of government resources and proceeded to award contracts to 12 offerors whose initial proposals met the solicitation's requirements.
The General Accountability Office (GAO) denied Tech7's protest, upholding the Air Force's decision. The GAO emphasized that the solicitation did not mandate discussions and that Tech7's interpretation of the solicitation was unreasonable. The GAO also noted that Tech7 had been explicitly informed by the agency that they needed to provide the missing subcontractor data, in response to a question Tech7 itself had asked.
Furthermore, the GAO dismissed Tech7's supplemental protest, which alleged that the Air Force improperly allowed Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to correct its total compensation plan after proposal submission. The GAO deemed this protest untimely, as it was filed more than 10 days after the conclusion of Tech7's debriefing and was based on information disclosed during that debriefing.
In summary, the GAO found that the Air Force acted reasonably in not holding discussions and in excluding Tech7's proposal due to its failure to comply with the solicitation's requirements.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423206%2Cb-423206.2
Publicly Released on: Mar 17, 2025 Published: Mar 10, 2025
Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester .
Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Nicole Williamson, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.; Stephan P. Ramaley, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge PC, for Bryce Space and Technology, LLC; Isaias Alba IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Tracey L. Pruiett, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Christopher A. Jannace, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for OBX-MCR Alliance, LLC; and William M. Pannier, Esq., Pannier Law PC, for BTAS, Inc., the intervenors.
Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Christian H. Robertson II, Esq., and Joseph Wendleberger, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
GAO Dismisses Protest by Colorado Firm Against Army Latrine Contract Award to Georgia Company
Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has dismissed a protest filed by Major Contracting Services Inc., a small business based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a contract to K&H Environmental Services, a small business located in East Dublin, Georgia. The contract, for portable chemical latrines (PCL) and hand washing stations (HWS) at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia, was awarded under a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.
Major Contracting Services protested the award, alleging bias, procedural errors, improper
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has dismissed a protest filed by Major Contracting Services Inc., a small business based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenging the U.S. Army's award of a contract to K&H Environmental Services, a small business located in East Dublin, Georgia. The contract, for portable chemical latrines (PCL) and hand washing stations (HWS) at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia, was awarded under a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.
Major Contracting Services protested the award, alleging bias, procedural errors, improperdisclosure of information, and challenging the Army's affirmative determination of responsibility regarding K&H. However, the GAO found the protester's allegations to be based on speculation and legally and factually insufficient.
The GAO dismissed claims of bias, citing a lack of concrete evidence and emphasizing the presumption of good faith by government officials. Allegations of procedural deficiencies were also dismissed, with the GAO finding no violation of procurement law or regulation.
Regarding claims of improper disclosure of information, the GAO stated that Major's claims, including alleged premature knowledge of the award by K&H and access to Major's proprietary information, lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate a prejudicial violation of procurement law.
Furthermore, the GAO dismissed Major's challenge to the contracting officer's affirmative determination of responsibility. The GAO generally does not review such determinations unless there is evidence of serious concerns, such as potential criminal activity, which the GAO found lacking in this case.
The original solicitation, issued on June 26, 2024, sought an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for PCL and HWS services. K&H Environmental Services was ultimately deemed the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror.
The GAO's decision, dated March 4, 2025, concludes that Major Contracting Services' protest is dismissed in its entirety.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423191
Publicly Released on: Mar 5, 2025 Published: Mar 4, 2025
Major Katharine M. Calderon, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
NSA Excludes Mission Essential Group from Signals Intelligence Contract Bid
Marlyn T. Vitin
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential) has been excluded from the competitive range for a significant signals intelligence services contract with the National Security Agency (NSA), according to a recent decision by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The contract, known as LUCIDLOBSTER, sought proposals for active and passive signals intelligence support.
The GAO decision, released on Jan. 15, 2025, details Mission Essential's protest against the NSA's evaluation of its proposal. The company challenged its exclusion, citing issues with the agency's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential) has been excluded from the competitive range for a significant signals intelligence services contract with the National Security Agency (NSA), according to a recent decision by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The contract, known as LUCIDLOBSTER, sought proposals for active and passive signals intelligence support.
The GAO decision, released on Jan. 15, 2025, details Mission Essential's protest against the NSA's evaluation of its proposal. The company challenged its exclusion, citing issues with the agency'sevaluation process and alleging organizational and personal conflicts of interest.
The NSA evaluated proposals based on several factors, including management, ability to staff, small business participation, and cost. Mission Essential received an "unacceptable" rating for its management factor and a "marginal" rating for its ability to staff. The management factor was further broken down into subfactors, including staffing, training, innovation, and corporate plan. Mission Essential received unacceptable scores for innovation and corporate plan.
The GAO denied Mission Essential's protest, finding the NSA's evaluation to be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. Key issues included the company's failure to provide a sufficient plan for integrating emerging technologies into senior mentor roles and a deficient corporate plan concerning essential services during crises.
"We deny the protest," the GAO stated in its decision, emphasizing that the NSA's evaluation was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. The GAO also dismissed the conflict of interest allegations, stating that Mission Essential, having been reasonably excluded from the competitive range, lacked the necessary "interested party" status.
This decision marks a setback for Mission Essential in its pursuit of the lucrative signals intelligence contract. The NSA will proceed with the remaining offerors in the competitive range.
* * # * *
Primary source of information - GAO: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423053%2Cb-423053.2
Publicly Released on: Feb 27, 2025 Published: Jan 15, 2025
Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester.
Sharon E. Chamberlain, Esq., Mary Upton Shirley, Esq., and Ronald M. LaRocca, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency.
Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
