File Not Found

B-424321.2,B-424321.3 Jun 18, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Absolute Strategic Technologies, LLC (AST), of Southlake, Texas, protests the Department of the Air Force's issuance of a task order to Concept Plus, LLC (CPL), of Fairfax, Virginia, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8770-25-R-B006, to provide support services for the Air Force's "Reliability and Maintainability Information System" (REMIS). Protest at 3-19. AST protests that the agency improperly evaluated AST's and CPL's proposals and failed to perform a reasonable best-value tradeoff. 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: Absolute Strategic Technologies, LLC File: B-424321.2; B-424321.3 Date: June 18, 2026 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., Erin L. Felix, Esq., Daniel H. Petkoff, Esq., and Eyasu Yirdaw, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., and Adina B. Nelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Concept Plus, LLC, the intervenor. Col. Justin A. Silverman, Michael J. Farr, Esq., Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Geoffrey R. Townsend, Esq., Lindsey A. Rasmussen, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal under the technical subfactors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency was required to perform a price realism evaluation fails to state a valid basis for protest where solicitation made no reference to price realism and did not advise offerors that their proposals could be rejected for offering prices that were too low. 3. Protest challenging various aspects of agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated awardee's proposed costs as realistic; reasonably evaluated awardee's technical proposal as outstanding under the staffing approach evaluation subfactor; and did not treat offerors unequally. 4. Protest is denied where agency's best value determination was based on the agency's reasonable consideration of the relative merits and costs/prices of the competing proposals. DECISION Absolute Strategic Technologies, LLC (AST), of Southlake, Texas, protests the Department of the Air Force's issuance of a task order to Concept Plus, LLC (CPL), of Fairfax, Virginia, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8770-25-R-B006, to provide support services for the Air Force's “Reliability and Maintainability Information System” (REMIS). Protest at 3-19.[1] AST protests that the agency improperly evaluated AST's and CPL's proposals and failed to perform a reasonable best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND In March 2025, pursuant to section 16.505 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the agency issued the solicitation to contractors holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the Small Business Enterprise Applications Solutions (SBEAS) program; the solicitation sought proposals to provide various support services for REMIS.[2] The solicitation's SOO included section 3.1, titled “Operations Support,” and section 3.2, titled “Agile Capability Support,” which reflected virtually all of the work contemplated by the solicitation.[3] In this context, each offeror was required to draft and submit a portion of the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS), describing its approach to meeting the specific requirements identified in SOO sections 3.1 and 3.2. See AR, Tab 3e, PWS at 4. The solicitation provided that issuance of the task order would be based on a best-value tradeoff between technical and cost/price evaluation factors,[4] and established three equally weighted technical subfactors: operations support;[5] agile capability support;[6] and staffing approach.[7] AR, Tab 3d, Instructions to Offerors at 6. The solicitation provided that technical proposals would be assigned ratings of unacceptable, acceptable, or outstanding under each of the technical subfactors based on the degree to which the proposal addressed, and demonstrated an understanding of, the SOO requirements. Id. at 9‑11. Finally, the solicitation provided that, to obtain a rating of outstanding, a proposal must “contain[] at least one strength,” and defined a strength as “an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.” Id.