File Not Found

B-424322,B-424322.3,B-424322.2,B-424322.4 Jun 18, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Weston Solutions, Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Tetra Tech, Inc., of Collinsville, Illinois, protest the award of a contract to Pond Constructors, Inc., of Peachtree Corners, Georgia, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W912DY26RA017, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for fuel program preventive and corrective maintenance in support of the Defense Logistics Agency. The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and award decision. We deny the protests. 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: Weston Solutions, Inc.; Tetra Tech, Inc. File: B-424322; B-424322.3; B-424322.2; B-424322.4 Date: June 18, 2026 John G. Horan, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for Weston Solutions, Inc.; and Holly A. Roth, Esq., John M. McAdams III, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Tetra Tech, Inc., the protesters. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Pond Constructors, Inc., the intervenor. Allen Scott Black, Esq., United States Army, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals are denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Challenge to the agency's evaluation of the protester's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest challenging the agency's comparative analysis and source selection decision is denied where the agency's best-value tradeoff and source selection decision were reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Weston Solutions, Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Tetra Tech, Inc., of Collinsville, Illinois, protest the award of a contract to Pond Constructors, Inc., of Peachtree Corners, Georgia, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W912DY26RA017, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for fuel program preventive and corrective maintenance in support of the Defense Logistics Agency.[1] The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and award decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2025, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, the Corps issued the solicitation.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 68; AR, Tab 6B, RFP attach. 5, Instructions and Evaluation Factors at 11. The solicitation sought proposals for preventive and corrective maintenance services in support of DLA. Tetra Tech Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The work would be performed within the Corps's South Atlantic Division, including locations in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Id. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period and two 1-year options. RFP at 10. The RFP established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical and management approach (technical); (2) past performance; (3) small business participation (small business); and (4) price. AR, Tab 6B, RFP attach. 5, Instructions and Evaluation Factors at 11. All non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The technical and small business participation evaluation factors were to be evaluated and assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable; only offerors with a rating of acceptable or higher would be eligible for award. Id. at 13, 16‑17. Under the RFP, the agency would evaluate past performance to assign a confidence assessment rating of substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no confidence; proposals assigned limited or no confidence ratings were ineligible for award. Id. at 11, 15. The solicitation provided that price would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Id. at 17. The agency received four proposals by the December 4, deadline for submission. Tetra Tech COS at 3.