EEC-Lukos JV, LLC (H9224025R0001)

B-423464.2,B-423464.3 Jan 27, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights EEC-Lukos JV, LLC (ELJV), a small business of Haines City, Florida, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. H9224025R0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command, for services to support the day-to-day operations in all mission areas for the NSW Command. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: EEC-Lukos JV, LLC File: B-423464.2; B-423464.3 Date: January 27, 2026 Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., P. Tyson Marx, Esq., and Nicholas L. Perry, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Jonathan D. Perrone, Esq., Timothy J. Turner, Esq., and Joshua Sather, Esq., Centre Law & Consulting, LLC, for Skybridge Tactical, LLC; and Jackson W. Moore, Jr., Esq., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, for Seventh Dimension, LLC, the intervenors. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Kelsi J. Pilcher, Esq., and Alanna Whybrew, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION EEC-Lukos JV, LLC (ELJV), a small business of Haines City, Florida, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. H9224025R0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command, for services to support the day-to-day operations in all mission areas for the NSW Command.[1] The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on November 5, 2024, as a set-aside for small businesses, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The RFP sought services to support the day-to-day operations of the NSW Command in all mission areas. The solicitation anticipated the award of five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, with fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers, for a base ordering period of five years and one 2-year option ordering period.[2] AR, Tab 3, RFP at 41; COS at 2. The due date for proposals was December 5, 2024. RFP at 1. The solicitation established that the agency would evaluate two factors: technical proposal substantiating data and cost/price, and make award to offerors with the highest technically rated proposals and reasonable prices. RFP at 51. The RFP also provided for the evaluation of a transition plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 52. For the technical proposal substantiating data factor, offerors were to provide up to five “work samples” of previous contracts or task orders.[3] Id. at 47. Offerors were to rate and substantiate each sample--thus providing a self-score for each sample--based on eight categories.[4] Id. at 54-56. As relevant here, the solicitation noted that the agency would eliminate a proposal from the competition if, during evaluation, the proposal received numerous point deductions to an offeror's self-score due to “ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, misleading, or inadequate supporting documentation.” Id. at 51. For the cost/price volume, offerors were to complete a price template with the total evaluated price, calculated based on a sampling of various labor categories across all ordering periods; offerors also were to provide a total compensation plan as part of their price narrative. Id. at 48. The solicitation provided for submission of proposals with the following volumes: contract documentation administrative, transition plan, technical proposal substantiating data, and cost/price.[5] RFP at 44‑45. In conducting its evaluation, the agency would first rank proposals based on each offeror's self-score under the technical proposal substantiating data factor. Id. The agency then would take the five proposals with the highest scores and perform a three-step evaluation process. Id. Under step one, the agency would conduct an acceptability (solicitation conformance) review. Id. Under step two, the agency would evaluate the transition plan of each proposal that passed step one on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. Under step three, the agency would validate each offeror's self-score worksheet. Id.