Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC (RFP-1779540)

B-424143,B-424143.2 Mar 17, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC, a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Akima Facilities Operations, LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. RFP1779540, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for support services at the Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC File: B-424143; B-424143.2 Date: March 17, 2026 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Hillary J. Freund., Esq., and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Alfred M. Wurglitz, Esq., Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., and Samara A. Rahman, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Facilities Operations, the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Travis Drost, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the evaluation was either reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, or the protester did not establish that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions. 2. Protester is not an interested party to challenge other aspects of the agency's evaluation and best‑value tradeoff where its proposal was reasonably evaluated as ineligible for award. DECISION Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC, a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Akima Facilities Operations, LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. RFP1779540, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for support services at the Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2025, the Army issued the FOPR as a small business set‑aside to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts through GSA's eBuy system under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1] COS/MOL at 2; AR, Tab 4, FOPR Amendments 0001-0004 at 1; AR, Tab 5, FOPR at 1. The solicitation sought proposals to provide non-personal services supporting LEAD.[2] COS/MOL at 2; FOPR at 1.[3] The FOPR contemplated the issuance of an order with fixed‑price and time‑and‑materials contract line items, a 1-year base period of performance, two 1‑year option periods, and an optional 6‑month extension under FAR clause 52.217-8. FOPR at 1‑3. The order would be issued on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering price and two non‑price factors: (1) technical and (2) past performance. Id. at 8. The solicitation explained that the technical factor was more important than the past performance factor, which in turn was more important than price. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency was to evaluate proposals under the technical factor to assess each offeror's proposed approach and understanding of the solicitation's requirements. Id. at 9‑10. The technical factor included three subfactors: (1) management plan; (2) phase‑in/phase‑out plan; and, (3) quality control plan. Id. at 9. Under the management plan subfactor, the agency was to evaluate the offerors' “understanding and management methodologies to fulfill” the PWS requirements. Id. Under the quality control plan subfactor, the Army was to evaluate offerors' understanding and methodologies to fulfill the requirements of the quality assurance plan and quality control processes. Id. The agency was to assign each proposal an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under each technical subfactor, and then assign the proposal an overall rating under the technical factor. Id. The solicitation specified that the management plan subfactor was more important than the quality control plan subfactor, which was more important than the phase‑in/phase‑out plan subfactor. Id. The FOPR provided that the Army would evaluate offerors' past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality to ascertain the likelihood that the offeror would successfully perform the PWS requirements. Id. at 10‑11.