JSToogood, LLC d/b/a Joint Strategic Technologies--Costs

B-423600.3 Dec 11, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JSToogood, LLC, d/b/a Joint Strategic Technologies (JST), of Southlake, Texas, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protests, including attorneys' fees, with respect to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA703725R0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for tactical and operations readiness support services. JST argues that its underlying protest allegations challenging the agency's evaluation and award decision were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. We dismiss the request in part and deny it in part. 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: JSToogood, LLC d/b/a Joint Strategic Technologies--Costs File: B-423600.3 Date: December 11, 2025 Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Fred Geldon, Esq., Anna M. Menzel, Esq., and Anjali Belur, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, for the requester. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, and Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Reimbursement for protest costs is dismissed, in part, where the agency has agreed to pay costs for an allegation that it concedes is clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action, and has also agreed to pay costs for certain derivative allegations that the agency agrees are intertwined. 2. Reimbursement for remaining protest costs is denied where the allegations are severable from the agreed-upon clearly meritorious challenge and do not by themselves demonstrate clear merit. DECISION JSToogood, LLC, d/b/a Joint Strategic Technologies (JST), of Southlake, Texas, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protests, including attorneys' fees, with respect to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA703725R0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for tactical and operations readiness support services.  JST argues that its underlying protest allegations challenging the agency's evaluation and award decision were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. We dismiss the request in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2025, the Air Force issued the RFP, using the procedures set forth under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and restricted competition to eligible 8(a)[1] small businesses, to procure tactical and operations readiness support services for the AFCYBER Operations Directorate (A3).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, RFP, at 1; AR, Tab 4b, RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3. Some of the specific duties to be performed include:  reviewing and analyzing the operational readiness of particular forces; monitoring subordinate unit readiness; battle rhythm preparation; and, analyzing and recommending mission essential task alignment.  Id. at 3-4.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 1-year base period, four 12-month option periods, and one 6-month extension period.  Id. at 4; RFP at 3-4.  Award would be made on a best-value basis to the highest technically rated offeror (HTRO) with acceptable past performance and a fair and reasonable price.  RFP at 39.  The RFP identified three factors for consideration: past technical experience, past performance, and price.  Id.  To demonstrate past technical experience, the RFP instructed offerors to reference a maximum of five work samples and complete a self-scoring matrix.  RFP at 36.  The self-scoring matrix required offerors to identify the number of work samples with work similar to the agency's requirement, and the number of full-time equivalents (FTE) in “Intelligence Analyst” or “Cyber Analyst” positions.  AR, Tab 4c, RFP, Self-Scoring Matrix at 1.  Offerors could receive a maximum of 100 points for the “[n]umber of work samples” category, and a maximum of 50 points for the “[n]umber of FTEs” category.  Id.; RFP at 40.  Thus, in total, offerors could receive a maximum of 150 points.  Id.  When evaluating past experience, the agency would initially rank all proposals from the highest self-rated score to the lowest self-rated score.  RFP at 40.  The agency would then validate the scores for only the two highest self-scored proposals.  Id.  If the agency could not validate a score, then the agency could unilaterally adjust downward any score to zero points; the agency could not increase an offeror's score.  Id.  If an offeror's score decreased during the validation process and was no longer one of the two highest-scoring proposals, then the agency would val...