File Not Found

B-424306 Jun 03, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DarkStar Intelligence, LLC, of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force's issuance of a task order to Starlo Innovation, LLC, of Washington, D.C., pursuant to task order proposal request (TOPR) No. FA4890-25-R-CN97, for intelligence and operational support services. DarkStar argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, utilized unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to consider price in the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: DarkStar Intelligence, LLC File: B-424306 Date: June 3, 2026 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester. Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Starlo Innovation, LLC, the intervenor. Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Autumn Hazy, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal under the technical subfactor and utilized unstated evaluation criteria is denied where the record reflects that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to consider price in its best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency documented its consideration of the awardee's higher price and its best-value tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION DarkStar Intelligence, LLC, of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force's issuance of a task order to Starlo Innovation, LLC, of Washington, D.C., pursuant to task order proposal request (TOPR) No. FA4890-25-R-CN97, for intelligence and operational support services. DarkStar argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, utilized unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to consider price in the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2025, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the Air Force issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside to firms holding General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Plus (OASIS+) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, TOPR at 1. The solicitation sought intelligence analysis services in support of the Narcotics and Transnational Crime Support Center (NTC), to support law enforcement and inter-agency partners--led by the Department of Defense (DOD)--in their operations against drug trafficking organizations, terrorist groups, and other transnational organized crime networks. Id. at 80. The TOPR provided for the issuance of a firm-fixed-price task order with a 2-month transition period, a 10-month base period, four 1‑year option periods, and a 6‑month extension period. Id. at 1-2. The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis “to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous” to the agency, considering two factors: technical and price. Id. at 3. The solicitation advised that the technical factor “will be considered significantly more important than price” but that price would still “contribute meaningfully to the award decision.” Id. As a result, the solicitation stated that award could be made “to a higher rated, higher priced contractor” where the agency “determines that the technical capability of the higher priced contractor outweighs the price difference and represents the best value to the Government.” Id. Under the technical factor, the solicitation established three subfactors: facility clearance, technical approach/mission understanding, and scenario-based questions. Id. Under the first subfactor, proposals would be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 3. Under the remaining two subfactors, proposals would be assigned “combined technical/risk” adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable; and the solicitation also provided for the assessment of significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. Id. at 6-11. The solicitation stated that these two technical subfactors were of equal importance. Id. at 3. As relevant here, under the technical approach/mission understanding subfactor, the agency would “assess the offeror's ability to address all functional areas of the Performance Work Statement” and to meet mission requirements. Id. at 7.