GAO denies MIL Corp. protest of $156.1 million Navy IT task order to BAE Systems

By Garrett Sloane

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office has denied a bid protest by The MIL Corporation of Bowie, Md., leaving in place a Navy information technology task order issued to BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc. of Rockville, Md., at a proposed price of $156,141,117.

The decision, B-424664 and B-424664.2, was issued Oct. 19 under a GAO protective order and approved for public release Oct. 23. GAO denied MIL’s main challenge, over a key personnel requirement, and dismissed the rest of the protest. It ruled that because the Navy had properly found MIL’s offer unacceptable, the company was not an interested party able to pursue its other complaints.

The dispute turned on one line in a staffing table. The Navy required its senior industrial production manager to hold a master’s degree in a technical field. MIL proposed a candidate with a bachelor’s degree and more than four years of relevant experience. GAO agreed with the Navy that the solicitation allowed no substitution of experience for that degree.

The procurement

On June 12, 2025, the Navy issued request for offers N0042124R3040 to companies holding SeaPort-NxG multiple-award contracts, according to the decision. The work supports the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, headquartered at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in St. Mary’s County, Md. The solicitation sought labor for the “rapid design, fabrication, installation/kitting, and fielding of systems and capability enhancements via technologically-derived solutions.”

The Navy said it would issue one task order to the offeror with the “Highest Technically Ranked Offer” and a fair and reasonable price, comparing offers on sample tasks and key personnel. Five companies, including MIL and BAE, submitted offers by July 25, 2025.

The $156,141,117 figure is BAE’s proposed price for the task order, as stated in the selection decision quoted by GAO. The decision does not say how much the Navy has obligated on the order so far.

One degree requirement

The solicitation listed qualifications for each labor category. For some categories it allowed a “qualifying substitution” of experience for a degree. For example, the senior general and operations manager needed a “Master’s degree in any discipline, or a qualifying substitution.” For the senior industrial production manager, a key personnel position, the solicitation required a “Master’s degree in Engineering or Engineering discipline, Computer Science or IT discipline, or Technical discipline.” It did not mention substitution.

The Navy’s technical evaluation team found that MIL’s candidate “did not meet the degree requirements, as he holds a Bachelor’s degree while the position explicitly requires a Master’s degree with no substitution allowed.” The team still ranked MIL’s offer second, behind BAE’s. It wrote that the other offers were “substantial and good overall, [but] did not measure up technically to BAE.” The selection official concluded that “MIL is technically unawardable due to failing a mandatory Key Personnel degree requirement.”

MIL’s argument and GAO’s answer

MIL argued that the Navy disqualified its candidate “by reading into the Solicitation a requirement that appears nowhere in its text.” It pointed to the solicitation’s substitution chart, which said a bachelor’s degree plus four years of related experience could stand in for a master’s degree. MIL said the chart “broadly allowed offerors to substitute relevant work experience for a Master’s Degree, without limitation.”

The Navy responded that substitution was allowed for some labor categories but not all. It said MIL’s reading would make the category-by-category substitution language meaningless.

GAO agreed with the Navy. “Here, we conclude that the agency has presented the only reasonable interpretation of the solicitation,” the decision said. MIL’s reading, it said, “would render meaningless the specific language in the solicitation that authorized substitution of experience for degree requirements–but only for certain labor categories.” GAO noted that “there is no dispute that MIL’s proposed key person did not hold such a degree.”

MIL had also challenged the evaluation of sample tasks and raised alleged organizational conflicts of interest. GAO dismissed those grounds without reaching their merits, because an offeror whose proposal was properly found unacceptable is not an interested party to challenge the rest of the evaluation. GAO made no finding of wrongdoing by any party.

GAO had jurisdiction because the order exceeds $35 million, the threshold for protests of task orders under Defense Department multiple-award contracts.

Who argued the case

Keeley A. McCarty, Evan C. Williams and David O’Neill of Fox Rothschild LLP represented MIL. Jamie F. Tabb, Tyler E. Robinson and Christopher M. O’Brien of Vinson & Elkins LLP represented BAE as intervenor. D. Thomas Wilson represented the Navy.

Request for comment

The Washington Inquisitor sought comment from The MIL Corporation, BAE Systems, the GAO and the offices of Maryland Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks. The Inquisitor could not locate a verified public email address for Naval Air Systems Command public affairs. This story will be updated with any responses.

Featured image: An F/A-18F Super Hornet of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 flies a captive-carry test at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., Jan. 12, 2012. U.S. Navy photo by Greg L. Davis, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; cropped.