PCI Bhate JV, LLC (FA4600-25-R-0002)

B-423853 Jan 02, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PCI Bhate JV, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the agency's decision not to select it for award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4600-25-R-0002 issued by the Department of the Air Force for construction and design-build projects. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable as a result of the agency's decision not to consider information on pages exceeding the solicitation's page limits. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: PCI Bhate JV, LLC File: B-423853 Date: January 2, 2026 Joseph G. Martinez, Esq., Dentons US LLP, for the protester. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey J. Hannon, Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Lyric L. Clark, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Alexa J. Young, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows the protester's proposal exceeded the solicitation's page limits, and the agency's decision not to consider the extra information within the extra pages was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's terms. DECISION PCI Bhate JV, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the agency's decision not to select it for award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4600‑25‑R‑0002 issued by the Department of the Air Force for construction and design-build projects. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable as a result of the agency's decision not to consider information on pages exceeding the solicitation's page limits. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 18, 2025, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set‑aside, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, seeking to award multiple-award construction IDIQ contracts for a “diverse group of construction and design‑build projects” at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 5, 52.[1] The solicitation sought to award contracts to eight offerors, but reserved the right for the agency to award to more or fewer offerors. AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 3 at 5-6. The solicitation also contemplated a 5-year base period and one 6‑month option period. AR, Tab 3, RFP at 1, 14. Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis considering the following three evaluation factors: price, technical, and past performance. AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 3 at 6. The technical factor contained four subfactors: site management/key personnel, quality control, experience, and seed projects. Id. at 6. In setting out the evaluation factors for award, the solicitation “cautioned” offerors to “submit sufficient and correct information . . . in the format specified” in the solicitation. Id. at 5. The solicitation further explained that “[f]ailure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.” Id. The solicitation directed offerors to organize their proposals into separate volumes, with volume I addressing the price factor, volume II addressing the technical factor, and an optional volume III addressing the past performance factor. AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4 at 2‑3; COS at 5‑6. The solicitation also provided specific instructions for the content of each volume. AR, Tab 7, RFP amend. 4 at 2‑3. As relevant here, in volume II, the solicitation instructed offerors to include information addressing each technical subfactor. Id. at 4. For example, with regard to the seed project subfactor, offerors were required to submit information for two seed projects, to include a management plan, project schedule, and information addressing the solicitation's prescribed technical standards.[2] Id. Of importance to this protest, the solicitation prescribed a 100-page limit across all volumes. Id. at 3. The solicitation also explained the following: “Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.” Id. Under the solicitation, the agency stated it would evaluate proposals as follows: The Government will rank the proposals by total overall price (both seed projects combined) and only evaluate the eight (8) lowest priced proposals initially. The Government will then evaluate those eight (8) proposals for Price, Technical, and Past Performance.