On January 22, 2026, the General Services Administration issued a Request for Information asking IT hardware value added resellers (VARs) to explain their markups. A few weeks earlier, the Pentagon leaked a memo proposing a 5% cap on reseller fees for purchases off the GSA Schedule. VARs, it would seem,
Agency requested that vendors include "pre-priced, and non-pre-priced, coefficients for each performance location" as part of vendors' pricing proposals. One of the vendors, however, in the pricing spreadsheet didn't provide coefficients, it provided the full total within the proposal. On protest, that vendor argued that "because it made an obvious error in its pricing proposal, the agency should have afforded the firm an opportunity to correct its mistake." GAO disagreed, noting its longstanding view that seeking clarifications is an option, not an obligation. Protest denied.
GAO: Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc., B-423945,B-423945.2 (Jan 29, 2026)
Protestor challenged a $1.3 billion sole-source contract by the Forest Service. GAO found, however, the protestor was not an interested party because it didn't (yet) sell a product that was on the qualified product list. Protest dismissed.
GAO: Coulson Aviation USA, Inc., B-423952,B-423952.3 (Feb 04, 2026)
The Air Force solicited proposals for "training intelligence plans and exercise support for cyber readiness operations and weapons and tactics network defensive operations" and made an award to Cherokee Nation Strategic Programs, LLC (CNSP). Protestor argued that the Air Force evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, but GAO found that the record supported the agency's evaluation. Protestor also argued that CNSP's cost was unrealistic because the agency used an "arbitrary" floor of 15% below incumbent labor rates. GAO rejected the argument, finding credible the agency's explanation that the 15% floor was "based on the collective experience of the evaluation team to determine whether a proposed labor rate was unrealistic and could present a risk to program success." GAO also rejected protestor's claim of unequal discussions and found that the agency's best-value tradeoff was documented and reasonable. Protest denied.
On May 5, 2025, the COFC issued an injuction to the Army to "conduct a new evaluation of the offerors’ initial proposal submissions in accordance with the Solicitation." In September 2025, the Army decided to amend the Solicitation and requested revised proposals. The protestor argued that this decision violated the court order, and the court agreed: "the Court holds that the Army’s actions achieved the same result that the injunction forbade: evaluating altered proposals beyond those included in the initial proposals." Permanent injunction issued.
COFC: Gemini Tech Services LLC v. United States, 24-1494 (Feb 5, 2026)
Agency found protestor's proposal to be non-responsive because the protestor did not include the required documentation for its personnel as part of the offer. Protestor claimed that the proposed personnel was a contractor, not a current employee, so no documentation was required. But the agency and GAO disagreed based on the plain language of the solicitation.
GAO also rejected protestor's claim that the agency needed to refer the protestor's disqualification to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency. But, GAO noted that the agency disqualification was based on the proposal's deficiencies, not on a non-responsibility determination.
Protest denied.
Protestor argued, without any evidence, that an awardee was not a SDVOSB. SBA found that the protestor "utterly fail[ed] to make any specific allegations that [the awardee] is not in compliance with the regulations." Protest denied.
GSA sought to purchase "security containers," like it had done for more than 20 years, using commercial procedures under FAR Part 12. But protestor claimed that the product it sold was not commercially available because of some government-specific modifications. GSA's market research suggested otherwise and GAO agreed with the agency, noting that the products were "'of a type' of product sold commercially." Protestor also challenged GSA's inclusion of a liquidated damages clause, but GAO agreed with GSA that the clause was not punitive. Protestor also alleged that the solicitation contained erroneous information (though corrected by the agency), and had ambiguous or conflicting clauses related to hazardous waste and price adjustments. GAO disagreed and said that the clauses were just fine.
Empower AI challenged a decision by HHS to award to Booz Allen Hamilton. On protest, HHS agreed to corrective action. Empower AI requested protest costs, and GAO agreed that HHS should reimburse protest costs because HHS "failed to disclose the agency's preference for an AWS solution" and "the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest allegation," though GAO did not agree with Empower AI's other challenges.
On September 22, the contracting officer denied an agency-level protest for a FAR Part 8 purchase order. After some back and forth, on September 30, the CO said "[i]f there is no shutdown [he would] further debrief consistent with [FAR] Part 15.” Except there was a shutdown. Then, on December 1, the CO sent a written debriefing. On December 4, the protestor went to GAO. But, in bad news for the protestor, GAO's view was that, because no formal debrief was actually required under FAR Part 8, the protest window started to run on September 22 (and tolled through the shutdown), not on December 1. And because the protest was untimely, the protest was dismissed.
