File Not Found

B-424201.3,B-424201.4 Jun 15, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AVMAC, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, challenges the issuance of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI), Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFSA25R0008, which was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to GSA's ASTRO multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for maintenance of tiltrotor aircraft for the United States Marine Corps. The protester alleges the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals, the conduct of discussions, and in the conduct of the 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: AVMAC LLC File: B-424201.3; B-424201.4 Date: June 15, 2026 J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester. Andrew Sinn, Esq., and Jarrett Cook, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably limited discussions on corrective action to only one firm is denied where the protester previously received meaningful discussions, the agency did not identify a material ambiguity in the other firm's proposal until after award, and the scope of discussions and permissible proposal revisions were limited to addressing only the missed deficiency that should have been raised during the previous rounds of discussions. 3. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the awardee's proposal where the agency contemporaneously concluded that there would be two other offerors in line for award before the protester if the awardee were not eligible for award. DECISION AVMAC, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, challenges the issuance of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI), Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFSA25R0008, which was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to GSA's ASTRO multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for maintenance of tiltrotor aircraft for the United States Marine Corps. The protester alleges the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals, the conduct of discussions, and in the conduct of the best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 4, 2025, GSA, on behalf of the Marine Corps, issued the RFP seeking to award a task order for a variety of maintenance services for the MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The RFP provided that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between four factors: (1) technical approach; (2) staffing; (3) corporate experience; and (4) price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, RFP at 87. The solicitation provided that each offeror would also receive an overall technical rating combining the three non-price factors. Id. at 92. Moreover, the RFP explained that the three non-price factors were of equal importance to each other, but, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 85. The agency received seven timely proposals. MOL at 3. On October 1, the contracting officer determined that there was an ambiguity in the solicitation that had resulted in three of the seven offerors submitting their proposals in an incorrect format. Id. at 4. Accordingly, on October 6, the agency issued evaluation notices to all seven offerors outlining weaknesses and deficiencies in their respective proposals and invited offerors to submit revised proposals, including revised pricing. Id. On October 14, the agency received revised proposals from all seven offerors. Id. On November 12, the contracting officer determined that AVMAC and STI had not fully addressed all deficiencies in their proposals and the agency issued a second set of evaluation notices to those two offerors. Id. The agency received revised proposals from both offerors on November 24. Id. Of note, during the agency's evaluation, the technical evaluation team ultimately assigned all offerors the same adjectival ratings for technical approach and staffing approach, and the same overall non-price rating of “significant confidence.” AR, Tab 79A, Award Decision Document (ADD) at 115. However, notwithstanding that all offerors received the same overall non-price rating, there was some variation among offerors under the corporate experience factor. Id.