GAO rejects four small-business protests of Army, Navy and Air Force contracts

By Garrett Sloane

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office has rejected four bid protests over Army, Navy and Air Force contracts in decisions released this month, siding with the military services on how they evaluated proposals and enforced solicitation rules.

GAO denied three of the protests and dismissed the fourth as filed too late. The decisions, dated Oct. 16 to Oct. 20, cover an Army Corps of Engineers design contract in the Caribbean, Navy construction and training contracts, and an Air Force roofing job in Wyoming. All four protesters are small businesses.

In each case, the services argued they had followed the terms of their solicitations, and GAO agreed. GAO decides protests on whether an agency acted reasonably and within procurement law and the solicitation’s terms; it does not substitute its own judgment for the agency’s.

Army Corps of Engineers: Caribbean design pool

Kenall-Geo Engineering JV of San Juan, Puerto Rico, challenged the Corps’ decision not to rank it among the most highly qualified firms for a pool of architect-engineer contracts supporting civil works and military construction in the Caribbean basin. The solicitation, issued Aug. 6, 2025, planned eight indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts: five unrestricted and three for small businesses. The protest concerned the small-business pool.

Under the Brooks Act, architect-engineer contracts are not awarded on price. Agencies rank firms on qualifications and then negotiate a fee with the top-ranked firms. Kenall-Geo argued the Corps used unstated criteria by focusing on experience as a prime contractor and on experience with several types of military facilities, and that it treated offerors unequally by criticizing the joint venture’s “heavy reliance on large business subconsultants,” according to the decision.

GAO denied the protest on Oct. 20, finding that the agency “reasonably relied on key discriminators to select the highest-ranked firms” and that its discussions with offerors were consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s rules for architect-engineer procurements.

Navy: two-phase construction contracts

Encon Desbuild JV4 of Hyattsville, Md., protested its exclusion after the first phase of a Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command competition for general and design-build construction contracts under solicitation N69450-25-R-0011. The joint venture challenged significant weaknesses the Navy assigned under past performance and said it was never given a chance to respond to adverse past-performance information.

The Navy asked GAO to dismiss the protest, arguing that the June 24 debriefing disclosed the evaluation findings and that the joint venture’s July 20 filing came more than 10 days later. The firm argued its deadline was extended because the debriefing was a required one, noting that the contracting officer had described it as such under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, the administration’s rewrite of the procurement rules.

GAO dismissed the protest as untimely on Oct. 19. It wrote that “the contracting officer’s mischaracterization of a debriefing is not determinative as to whether a debriefing is required,” citing an earlier decision, and held that a debriefing after phase one of a two-phase design-build procurement does not extend the filing deadline. GAO did not rule on the merits of the past-performance evaluation.

Navy: missing attachment

Hatalom Corp., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business in Orlando, protested its elimination from a Naval Air Systems Command competition for courseware revision and maintenance services, solicitation N6134026R1001. The proposal it submitted in July in response to amendment 0004 omitted a required attachment, L-1. Hatalom argued the Navy already had that attachment from the company’s April submission and should have evaluated it.

GAO denied the protest on Oct. 16. It said earlier decisions in which agencies had to consider material already in their possession dealt with proposals rejected as late, and were distinguishable because Hatalom had failed to follow the amendment’s instructions. GAO noted that Hatalom itself acknowledged that the “line of cases does not include a case with the specific factual scenario here.”

Air Force: roofing warranty

Prestique Inc. of Dayton, Texas, protested the Air Force’s rejection of its bid to repair and replace storm-damaged roofs at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, under invitation for bids FA4613-26-B-0001. The contract went to Miwok Construction of Las Vegas.

The Air Force said Prestique’s draft warranty did not show it could provide what the statement of work required: a no-dollar-limit warranty from the roof membrane manufacturer covering at least 20 years, 120 mph winds and 3-inch hail. Prestique argued the Air Force applied a standard meant for a later post-award submission, and that its bid, the lowest, took no exception to the solicitation.

GAO denied the protest on Oct. 19. It said an agency must reject a bid when the required literature submitted with it “does not clearly show conformance with the specifications.”

Request for comment

The Washington Inquisitor sought comment from the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, the Air Force and the four protesting companies. This story will be updated with any responses.

Featured image: The Government Accountability Office building in Washington. Photo by Ajay Suresh, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.