File Not Found

B-424317 May 15, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Metro Accounting and Professional Services, LLC (Metro), a small business of Goodyear, Arizona, protests the issuance of a task order to Vector CSP, LLC, a small business of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA4890-26-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for non-personal knowledge-based services in support of air combat command activities. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Metro's price proposal as ineligible for award, and it contends that issuing the task order to Vector was contrary to applicable law. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Metro Accounting and Professional Services, LLC File: B-424317 Date: May 15, 2026 Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and Daniel E. Schoeni, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel-Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for Vector CSP, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Justin A. Silverman and Walker J. Gray, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal as ineligible for award is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Metro Accounting and Professional Services, LLC (Metro), a small business of Goodyear, Arizona, protests the issuance of a task order to Vector CSP, LLC, a small business of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA4890-26-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for non-personal knowledge-based services in support of air combat command activities. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Metro's price proposal as ineligible for award, and it contends that issuing the task order to Vector was contrary to applicable law. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 15, 2025, the Air Force issued the FOPR under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of the General Services Administration's One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) Plus multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract within the technical and engineering services domain. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, FOPR at 61.[1] The FOPR, which was amended three times and set aside for small businesses, sought a contractor to provide specialized knowledge-based services, covering essential non-flying duties typically performed by pilots, weapons system officers, air liaison officers, and tactical air control party specialists. COS at 2; FOPR at 61. The FOPR contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price level-of-effort task order with cost reimbursement and fixed-price contract line items, with a 1‑year base period and four 1-year options. FOPR at 1. The task order would be issued to the highest technically rated offeror with fair and reasonable pricing. FOPR at 1, 3. The FOPR established that the agency would evaluate two factors: satisfactory prior experience[2] and price. Id. at 3-5. As relevant here, for the price proposal, the FOPR required offerors to submit a completed price proposal spreadsheet, basis of estimate (BOE),[3] and price narrative. FOPR at 15. The FOPR stated that the price narrative should explain the methodology used to develop the offeror's price proposal and address, at a minimum, the following items: a. The source(s) of any pricing data relied upon and why use of that source data is reasonable for this requirement. b. Identification and explanation of the mathematical factors applied (e.g. application of indirect, profit, and escalation rates); and c. Rationale for any judgmental factors applied (e.g. adjustments due to locality, risk, contingencies, etc.) to arrive at the proposed prices. Id. We refer to this aspect of the FOPR as the “price narrative requirement.” In addition, the FOPR provided that subcontractor data for the BOE and the price narrative could be included in the offeror's proposal or submitted separately. Id. at 16. The agency would evaluate price proposals to assess whether the proposed price was complete, balanced, realistic, and fair and reasonable. FOPR at 17.