Winspear Construction, LLC (36C26024R0087)

B-423869 Dec 30, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Winspear Construction, LLC, a small business of Boise, Idaho, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26024R0087, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for construction, maintenance, alteration, and repair services in support of VA medical facilities. The protester contends the agency's elimination of Winspear's proposal from the competition for failing to comply with the solicitation's proposal submission requirements was unreasonable. 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: Winspear Construction, LLC File: B-423869 Date: December 30, 2025 Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Shane M. McCall, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the agency's determination that the protester's proposal was ineligible for award, based on the omission of the correct version of the required certification regarding compliance with a contractual limitation on subcontracting, is denied where the solicitation required the submission of a specific version of the certification with the proposal and advised that a failure to submit that specific version of the certification would make the proposal ineligible for award. DECISION Winspear Construction, LLC, a small business of Boise, Idaho, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26024R0087, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for construction, maintenance, alteration, and repair services in support of VA medical facilities. The protester contends the agency's elimination of Winspear's proposal from the competition for failing to comply with the solicitation's proposal submission requirements was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 1, 2025, as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for a multiple award task order contract (MATOC), with a 1-year based period of performance and two, 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 1.[1] The RFP sought construction, maintenance, alteration, and repair services in support of the VA medical facilities located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. Id. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors: (1) past performance; (2) technical; and (3) seed project price proposal. Id. at 97. The agency received multiple proposals by the July 17 due date, to include a submission from Winspear. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4. On August 19, the contracting officer notified the protester that the firm's proposal “has been excluded from further consideration.” AR, Exh. 5, Rejection Letter at 3. The agency explained because Winspear failed to include in its proposal the proper version of a certification required under the terms of the RFP--that is, certification pursuant to Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) clause 852.219-75, which concerns limitations on subcontracting--the protester's proposal “is excluded from further consideration and is ineligible for award.” Id. On August 29, Winspear filed the instant protest challenging its elimination from the competition. DISCUSSION The sole issue in this protest concerns the reasonableness of the VA's decision to exclude Winspear's proposal from consideration. The protester concedes that it did not submit the correct version of the VAAR clause 852.219-75 certification required by the RFP. However, Winspear argues the agency should have deemed its certification (pursuant to a prior version of VAAR clause 852.219-75) as sufficient to comply with the solicitation's requirements. Alternatively, Winspear contends the VA unreasonably failed to seek clarification from the firm regarding its VAAR clause 852.219-75 certification. In response, the agency argues both its decision that the proposal was ineligible and not to conduct clarifications were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP and applicable procurement law and regulation. For the following reasons, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.[2] Before turning to the merits of the protest, we briefly discuss the relevant pertinent statutory and regulatory background.