GAO Dismisses Protest in Army Contract Award Dispute
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently dismissed a protest by Major Contracting Services, Inc. (Major) regarding the Army’s award of a contract for portable chemical latrines and handwashing stations at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. Major challenged the award to K&H Environmental Services, alleging improper evaluation of past performance, bias, and procedural errors. However, GAO found the protest legally and factually insufficient.
Major contended that K&H was a rebranded version of A-OK Portable Services, a company previously terminated for cause on a similar government contract. The Army, however, determined that the termination fell outside the three-year window outlined in the solicitation’s past performance criteria. Additionally, Major accused the Army of bias against their company, citing past interactions with the contracting office. GAO dismissed this claim due to lack of concrete evidence, reaffirming the legal presumption that contracting officials act in good faith.
Another significant issue raised by Major was the alleged improper disclosure of procurement information. The company suggested that K&H had access to insider details about the contract award and potentially confidential pricing data. However, GAO found that Major provided no substantial proof to support these allegations and determined that such claims did not constitute a valid basis for protest.
Major also sought to challenge the Army’s affirmative determination of K&H’s responsibility, arguing that K&H’s prior termination and potential misrepresentation of its small business status warranted disqualification. However, GAO reiterated that it generally does not review affirmative determinations of responsibility unless clear evidence of fraud or significant legal violations exists. Since Major’s allegations primarily centered around past performance issues rather than criminal activity or regulatory breaches, GAO declined to review the challenge.
This decision highlights the rigorous evidentiary standards required for a successful bid protest. Unsupported allegations and speculative claims are insufficient to overturn an award decision. Contractors must present clear, well-documented proof when contesting agency actions. The ruling also underscores the Army’s discretion in evaluating responsibility and past performance within the scope of its solicitation terms.
This summary is based on the GAO decision in B-423191, Major Contracting Services, Inc., March 4, 2025, and reflects the findings of the GAO. This blog post does not guarantee accuracy and does not constitute legal advice.
