The Cameron Bell Corporation DBA Gov Solutions Group (N0003925R3003)

B-423841 Dec 19, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Cameron Bell Corporation d/b/a Gov Solutions Group (GovSG), a small business of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Red River Resources, LLC d/b/a NavAide (NavAide), a small business of San Diego, California, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. N0003925R3003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), for professional support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was arbitrary, unsupported by the evidence, and inconsistent with the FOPR's evaluation criteria. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: The Cameron Bell Corporation d/b/a Gov Solutions Group File: B-423841 Date: December 19, 2025 Michael A. Killham, Esq., Law Office of Michael A. Killham, for the protester. William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for Red River Resources, LLC, the intervenor. Kimberly Foxx, Esq., and Karen Debolt, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester's technical proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION The Cameron Bell Corporation d/b/a Gov Solutions Group (GovSG), a small business of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Red River Resources, LLC d/b/a NavAide (NavAide), a small business of San Diego, California, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. N0003925R3003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), for professional support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was arbitrary, unsupported by the evidence, and inconsistent with the FOPR's evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation section 16.505, the agency issued the FOPR, which was subsequently twice amended, on January 8, 2025, under the Naval Sea System Command Seaport NxG Multiple Award Contract. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, FOPR at 4, 70.[1] The FOPR, which was set aside for small businesses, sought planning services for all major and minor Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (N-ERP) system upgrades, including the NAVWAR Enterprise's transition to a Systems, Applications, and Products in Data Processing (SAP) Business Suite 4 for SAP High-Performance Analytic Appliance (SAP S/4HANA) environment.[2] Id. at 3; AR; Exh. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 13-14. The contractor will be responsible for supporting the following business functions within the N-ERP environment: (a) master data management; (b) financial management (including (1) financial accounting; (2) revenue and cost controlling; (3) asset accounting; and (4) public sector management)); (c) program management (including (1) multi-project integration; (2) scheduling; (3) resource assignment; (4) planning and budgeting by task; and (5) project systems configuration/execution); (d) workforce management (including (1) organizational structure management; (2) personnel administration; (3) personnel development; (4) personnel time management; and (5) training and event management); (e) production planning; (f) materials management (including (1) procurement; (2) sales and distribution, (3) inventory and warehouse management; (4) environment, health, and safety; and (5) work flow management); and (g) plant maintenance (including (1) plant maintenance; (2) quality management; and (3) environment, health, and safety). AR, Exh. 1, PWS at 5-6. The FOPR contemplated the issuance of a task order with cost and cost-plus-fixed-fee line items, with a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and one 6-month option period. FOPR at 7, 9. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis using a three-phased evaluation process. Id. at 70. In the first phase, proposals would be evaluated based on two gate criteria: facility clearance level; and organizational experience. Under these gate criteria, proposals would be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. Id. at 71. In the second phase, proposals would be evaluated on the basis of two technical factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical; and management. Id. at 70, 72. The agency was to evaluate proposals under each factor by evaluating for positive findings, negative findings, and deficiencies. Id. at 70, 74.