GAO Denies Protest Over Army Waste Services Contract at Fort Moore
In a March 13, 2025 decision authored by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the protest by Zero Waste Solutions, Inc. was denied in part and dismissed in part. Zero Waste, a women-owned small business based in California, challenged the Department of the Army’s award of a refuse collection and recycling services contract at Fort Moore, Georgia, to Street Legal Industries, another women-owned small business located in Tennessee. Zero Waste’s objections focused on the responsiveness of the awardee’s bid and the Army’s responsibility determination.
At the heart of the protest was the application of FAR clause 52.219-14, “Limitations on Subcontracting,” which requires that small business contractors not pay more than 50% of the amount paid by the government to subcontractors who are not similarly situated. Zero Waste claimed that Street Legal intended to subcontract most of the work to Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. (MDI), which is not a women-owned small business, and that this arrangement would violate the subcontracting limitations.
However, the GAO found that Street Legal’s proposal did not, on its face, demonstrate a refusal to comply with the clause. While the teaming agreement between Street Legal and MDI stated that the team “does not believe the government intends to enforce this requirement at the task order level” and that compliance would be achieved “over the life of the contract,” the GAO agreed with the Army that this language did not negate the awardee’s obligation to comply. Rather, the Army reasonably interpreted the agreement as an acknowledgment of the subcontracting limitation, with an express commitment to comply over the course of the contract, including the base period and each option year. The GAO emphasized that compliance with subcontracting limits is generally a matter of contractor responsibility and is presumed unless the bid explicitly states otherwise.
Zero Waste also contested the Army’s affirmative determination of Street Legal’s responsibility. According to the protester, the Army relied too heavily on past performance databases and did not sufficiently consider whether the company had the necessary resources, experience, and capabilities. GAO dismissed this argument, explaining that responsibility determinations are within the discretion of the contracting officer and generally are not reviewed unless the protester identifies either unmet definitive responsibility criteria or evidence of serious concerns, such as fraud or criminal behavior. The protester failed to meet either threshold. The solicitation contained only general responsibility standards under FAR 9.104-1, and Zero Waste did not demonstrate that the Army ignored critical information or acted unreasonably in its evaluation.
The contracting officer reviewed Street Legal’s prior performance on similar contracts and concluded the company met the necessary responsibility standards. The GAO supported this conclusion, noting that the protester’s concerns—such as Street Legal’s reliance on MDI or statements on its website—did not amount to the type of “very serious matters” that would justify GAO’s intervention.
This case underscores the deference GAO affords to agency determinations related to responsibility and the limits of its review of such protests. It also highlights the importance for protestors to identify clear, material deviations from solicitation requirements when challenging the responsiveness of a bid. In the absence of definitive proof that a contractor intends to violate a FAR clause or is otherwise incapable of fulfilling the contract, GAO is unlikely to sustain such protests.
This blog post is a general summary for informational purposes only. It is not guaranteed to be accurate and does not constitute legal advice.
