Assisted Building Solutions,LLC (N6523625R3800)

B-423895,B-423895.2 Jan 08, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Assisted Building Solutions, LLC, (ABS) a small business of Frisco, Texas, protests the award of a contract to CenCore, LLC, a small business of Springville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523625R3800, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic (NIWC), for the design and installation of prefabricated secure modular buildings. ABS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. 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: Assisted Building Solutions,LLC File: B-423895; B-423895.2 Date: January 8, 2026 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Owen E. Salyers, Esq., and Winni Zhang, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for CenCore, LLC, the intervenor. Harold Askins, Esq., and Scott J. McGuigan, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably conducted its evaluation in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows the agency looked behind adjectival ratings and compared the relative merits of proposals. DECISION Assisted Building Solutions, LLC, (ABS) a small business of Frisco, Texas, protests the award of a contract to CenCore, LLC, a small business of Springville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523625R3800, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic (NIWC), for the design and installation of prefabricated secure modular buildings. ABS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on June 3, 2025, as a total small business set-aside, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 and part 15, for the design, fabrication, delivery, and installation of up to eight relocatable, prefabricated secure modular facilities at NIWC Atlantic in Charleston, South Carolina. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1-2; AR, Tab 7, Business Clearance Memorandum at 4. These facilities were required to be compliant with Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 so that sensitive compartmented information (SCI)[1] could be processed and managed in the facilities. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) at ¶ 1.1. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The contract is to be performed over five years with orders to be delivered in less than 24 months. RFP at 1, 3. Award was to be made to the offeror providing the best value to the agency considering price, which was to be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, and two non-price factors: technical approach and past performance.[2] Id. at 5, 7. Technical approach was significantly more important than price. Id. Under the technical approach factor, offerors were to demonstrate an approach to providing all management, labor, equipment, and material necessary for the design, construction, delivery, and installation of the facilities. SOW at ¶ 1.1. An offeror's approach had to include drawings, material lists, and a demonstration of compliance with ICD 705. RFP at 3. As relevant, ICD 705 has various requirements including that the offeror's facility must have 80-decibel (dB) radio frequency (RF) attenuation, and two doors that are both 80dB RF attenuated. SOW at ¶ 5.3(a), (h). Proposals also had to include a detailed schedule for the design, fabrication, delivery, and installation of the first facility. This schedule needed to address all requirements in the RFP, including its attachments. RFP at 3. Also relevant here, attachment 9 of the RFP, construction security plan, described the delivery requirements the contractor must meet. RFP, attach. 9, Construction Security Plan at ¶ 3.2. Proposals would be evaluated based on whether the proposed design and schedule met the terms of the RFP, including all attachments and SOW requirements, including the ICD 705 requirements. RFP at 6. Proposals would receive ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under this factor. Id. at 5-6. The agency received five proposals, including those of ABS and CenCore.