The JAAW Group, LLC (W9124G-25-R-A001)

B-424133 Feb 02, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The JAAW Group, LLC (JAAW), a small business of Sandy, Utah, protests the issuance of a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase order to Vikas LLC, a small business of Hampton, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124G25RA001, issued by the Department of the Army for live, virtual, constructive gaming support services for the Directorate of Simulation. The protester contends the agency did not provide JAAW with a debriefing as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and improperly evaluated its proposal. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: The JAAW Group, LLC File: B-424133 Date: February 2, 2026 Joel Ward for the protester. William Jack, Esq., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, for Vikas LLC, the intervenor. Robert B. Neill, Esq., Cali Y. Kim, Esq., Carter Cassidy, Esq., and Katharine Calderon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jungi Hong, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of protester's proposal is dismissed as untimely where it was not filed at GAO within 10 days of the denial of its agency-level protest, and the protester's request for reconsideration of the agency-level protest did not toll the time required to file a protest with GAO after initial adverse agency action. DECISION The JAAW Group, LLC (JAAW), a small business of Sandy, Utah, protests the issuance of a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase order to Vikas LLC, a small business of Hampton, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124G25RA001, issued by the Department of the Army for live, virtual, constructive gaming support services for the Directorate of Simulation. The protester contends the agency did not provide JAAW with a debriefing as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and improperly evaluated its proposal. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on March 6, 2025, with a closing date of April 7. RFQ at 1. The purchase order was issued to Vikas on September 19, 2025. Req. for Dismissal (RFD) at 1; RFD, exh. 17, Awarded Order. On September 22, pursuant to section 8.405-2(d) of the FAR, the agency provided JAAW with a brief explanation of the basis for award. RFD, exh. 7, Brief Explanation at 1. Following receipt of the brief explanation, JAAW filed an agency-level protest on the same day. RFD, exh. 8, Agency-Level Protest. In its agency-level protest, JAAW contended the brief explanation constituted an insufficient debriefing under the FAR, and the protester challenged the rating of marginal the agency assigned its quotation under the technical approach factor. Id. at 1-2. On September 25, the contracting officer (CO) denied JAAW's agency-level protest. RFD, exh. 10, Agency-Level Protest Decision. Following receipt of the agency's decision, the protester submitted a “rebuttal” to the contracting officer on September 28. RFD, exh. 11, Email from JAAW at 1 (“I have attached a rebuttal for your consideration.”). The rebuttal requested reconsideration and “retraction” of the denial of JAAW's agency-level protest. RFD, exh. 12, Req. for Recon. at 1. On September 30, the contracting officer responded, stating “[i]f there is no shutdown,” the agency would give a “further debrief consistent with [FAR] Part 15,” and asserting that the debrief was “discretionary and not required.” RFD, exh. 13, Email from CO at 1. On December 1, the contracting officer provided JAAW with a written debriefing, addressing follow-up questions the protester had submitted on September 30. RFD, exh. 14, Debrief Email at 1; exh. 15, Debrief at 1-3. This protest followed on December 4, 2025. DECISION The protester raises a number of allegations, but the gravamen of JAAW's challenge is that the Army (1) failed to provide a timely “mandatory” debriefing pursuant to section 16.505 of the FAR, and (2) improperly evaluated the protester's proposal. Protest at 2. The agency, joined by the intervenor, requests dismissal of the protest, asserting that the protest is untimely. RFD at 4-11. Initial Adverse Agency Action Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process.  Dominion Aviation, Inc.--Recon., B-275419.4, Feb. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 62 at 3. Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier.  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).