JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC--Costs

B-424191.3 May 15, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC, a mentor-protégé joint venture of San Antonio, Texas, requests our Office recommend that JBW be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the Air Force's alleged removal of a cybersecurity requirement from the U.S. Small Business Administration's small business development program, commonly referred to as the 8(a) program. We deny the request. 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: JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC--Costs File: B-424191.3 Date: May 15, 2026 Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Neil H. O'Donnell, Esq., and Timothy A. Wieroniey, Esq., Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, for the protester. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, and Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation of reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing prior protests is denied where the agency's corrective action was not unduly delayed. DECISION JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC, a mentor-protégé joint venture of San Antonio, Texas, requests our Office recommend that JBW be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the Air Force's alleged removal of a cybersecurity requirement from the U.S. Small Business Administration's small business development program, commonly referred to as the 8(a) program.[1] We deny the request. BACKGROUND The instant request stems from two underlying protests dismissed by our Office as academic after the agency took corrective action. See JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC, B‑424191, B-414191.2, Feb. 20, 2026 (unpublished decision). In the protests, JBW alleged that the Air Force improperly removed some of the “Information Security Support Services” (IS3) requirement--currently performed under an 8(a) contract--from the 8(a) program.[2] Id. at 1.[3] Specifically, JBW represented that on December 22, 2025, the Air Force informed the incumbent contractor the agency “intended to allow ‘all IS3 Task Orders to expire and [did] not intend to pursue an IS3 follow-on effort as such term is described in SBA's 8(a) Program regulations.” Id. In its initial and supplemental protests, JBW asserted that contrary to the agency's statement there would be no IS3 follow-on requirement, the Air Force had moved some of the IS3 work to either Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) or Leidos, or both, through modifications to existing task orders being performed by those firms under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract vehicles outside the 8(a) program.[4] Id. The original due date for the agency's report responding to the protests was February 4, 2026. Acknowledgment of Protest and Notice of Protective Order at 1, Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS or Dkt.) No. 4.[5] On January 28, prior to the due date for the agency report, the Air Force filed a request for dismissal. Dkt. No. 13. In the dismissal request, the Air Force represented “there is no follow-on contract for IS3 work,” and maintained that the allegations in JBW's protests were “based on rumors and hearsay.” Req. for Dismissal at 1. Additionally, the agency stated “the Air Force has confirmed that there is no IS3 work being performed on the Booz Allen Hamilton and Leidos contracts identified to support the protest allegations.” Id. at 2. Further, the agency claimed “as the Air Force has not awarded any IS3 follow-on work, there is no Agency record related to any such requirement,” and, based on this claim, asked our Office to consider the dismissal request and its attachments to be the agency report. Id. at 5. On January 28, based on the representations made in the dismissal request and its attachments, we granted the Air Force's request to treat the dismissal request as the agency report, and required JBW to submit comments within 10 days. Dkt. Nos. 13-14. On January 30, before the submission of comments, JBW objected to the scope of document production in the dismissal request and asked for additional document production. Dkt. No. 15. In response, our Office required the Air Force to produce additional documents in support of its dismissal request. Id. After reviewing the additional documents, our Office determined that “continuing to treat the dismissal request at Dkt. No. 13 as the AR [agency report] is not appropriate,” and we scheduled a conference call with the parties “to discuss a path forward for protest development.” Dkt. No. 22. During the call on February 9, our Office informed the parties that, at this time, “GAO declines to dismiss the protest as requested,” and we established a “new due date for the agency's report” of February 17.[6] Dkt. No.