SOS International, LLC ()

B-423898,B-423898.2,B-423898.3,B-423898.4 Jan 27, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Amentum Technology Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, and SOS International LLC (SOSi), of Reston, Virginia, protest the issuance of a task order for analytic support to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Falls Church, Virginia, under a task order proposal request (TOPR) issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) Joint Intelligence Operations Center (JIOC). The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process. We sustain the protests. 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: Amentum Technology Inc.; SOS International LLC File: B-423898; B-423898.3; B-423898.2; B-423898.4 Date: January 27, 2026 Anuj Vohra, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Crowell & Moring LLP, for Amentum Technology Inc.; and Dawn E. Stern, Esq., and Andrew W. Current, Esq., DLA Piper LLP (US), for SOS International LLC, the protesters. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Aime J. Joo, Esq., Ginsey V. Kramarczyk, Esq., and Sierra A. Paskins, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., the intervenor. Darren S. Gilkes, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Gregory T. O'Malley, Max D. Houtz, Esq., and Jeff Meding, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals are sustained where the evaluation of proposals under the technical factor was unsupported by the record and inadequately documented. DECISION Amentum Technology Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, and SOS International LLC (SOSi), of Reston, Virginia, protest the issuance of a task order for analytic support to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Falls Church, Virginia, under a task order proposal request (TOPR) issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) Joint Intelligence Operations Center (JIOC).[1] The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2025, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the TOPR to holders of its Solutions for the Information Technology Enterprise 3 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; TOPR at 1. The solicitation sought proposals to support the USCENTCOM Intelligence Directorate in performing consolidated intelligence analysis and associated activities.[2] TOPR at 23. The contractor will provide support primarily at the JIOC facility located at MacDill Air Force Base, the headquarters for USCENTCOM, in Tampa, Florida. Id. at 25. The TOPR contemplated issuance of a single time-and-materials-type task order (TO) for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. TOPR at 151. The solicitation anticipated award would be made to the highest technically evaluated proposal with a fair and reasonable price, considering price reasonableness and a single non-price technical factor. Id. at 157. Under these procedures, the agency would first evaluate offerors' technical proposals to assess offerors' ability to meet requirements set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). For this factor, the agency was to consider three subfactors, in descending order of importance: (1) “proposed approach, similar expertise, and substantial understanding of applicable PWS areas”; (2) depth of knowledge and expertise; and (3) management approach. Id. at 157. Second, the agency would evaluate price proposals to ensure that the highest technically evaluated proposal was proposed at a fair and reasonable price. Id. The TOPR specified that offerors would provide technical proposals via an oral presentation. Id. at 152. The oral presentations were to consist of (1) responses to the same three questions posed to all offerors, “covering the technical areas of work and program management” required for the TO and provided by the agency 72 hours ahead of time, and (2) a scenario provided to the offeror at the time of the oral presentation. Id. at 161. When evaluating offerors' oral presentations under the technical factor, the TOPR required the agency to assess its “confidence level” and assign a corresponding adjectival rating of high, some, or low confidence.[3] Id.