Four firms challenged the terms of a solicitation that consolidated two existing multi-billion-dollar IDIQ vehicles into a single $50 billion professional services marketplace. The protesters argued, among other things, that the agency improperly consolidated and bundled requirements, used ambiguous terms, and imposed unduly restrictive evaluation criteria. GAO denied the protests, finding that the agency’s consolidation determination complied with statutory requirements and that the combined quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits substantially exceed those of alternative approaches.
Kearney & Company, P.C.; NextGen Federal Systems LLC; Integral Federal, Inc.; Alpha Tech Alliance, LLC, GAO, B-424433.14 et al.
Background – The Army issued a solicitation under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) framework to establish a Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS), combining the existing RS3 and ITES-3S contract vehicles into a single multiple-award IDIQ with a $50 billion ceiling. The solicitation anticipated up to 350 awards across five service domains, with 125 reservations for small businesses. The agency received over 1,300 proposals. Four firms filed pre-closing protests challenging consolidation, bundling, alleged ambiguities, and purportedly restrictive requirements.
Consolidation Determination – One protester argued the agency failed to justify consolidating the two predecessor vehicles, contending that the identified savings of $81 million were too small and that the non-quantifiable benefits were conclusory. GAO denied the challenge, finding the Army conducted proper market research (receiving 352 industry responses, including 168 from supportive small businesses), coordinated with the SBA, and reasonably concluded combined quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits—including faster fielding of services, streamlined ordering, and reduced administrative redundancy—substantially exceeded alternatives. GAO emphasized that agencies may consider benefits beyond dollar savings, and the protester’s disagreement with how those benefits were weighed did not render the determination unreasonable.
Bundling Challenge – The same protester argued the $50 billion procurement constituted unlawful bundling because no small business could serve as prime on such a massive vehicle. GAO rejected this, noting the argument improperly conflated the total ordering ceiling across 350 contracts with the value of individual awards. Spreading the ceiling evenly would produce individual contracts worth approximately $143 million—less than an existing contract successfully performed by the protester’s own small business joint venture member. With 35% of awards reserved for small businesses and 168 small businesses expressing support during market research, GAO found no basis to conclude the procurement was unsuitable for small business award.
FAR vs. RFO Framework Ambiguity – A protester complained the solicitation inconsistently cited both standard FAR clauses and RFO-deviated versions, creating confusion about which regulatory regime applied. GAO denied this challenge, finding the clauses the protester identified as untagged were, in fact, unchanged by the RFO (so the baseline FAR dates were correct). Where both versions of one clause appeared, GAO found no material inconsistency because the operative text was substantively identical—the RFO merely updated the prescribing section. GAO acknowledged the ongoing FAR overhaul has created systemic clarity challenges but found no concrete regulatory deficiency here.
CPARS Screening Criterion – A protester challenged the solicitation’s pass/fail screening that eliminated large business offerors with 5% or more CPARS ratings of “Marginal” or below, arguing it was mechanical and would unfairly disqualify the firm. GAO denied the challenge, finding the Army reasonably explained the threshold distinguished isolated performance issues from systemic deficiencies, which was appropriate given MAPS would support mission-critical IT services worldwide, including in hostile environments.
CMMC Certification Scoring – A protester argued the scoring system awarding bonus points for early Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 third-party certification was unduly restrictive. GAO denied the challenge, finding the agency reasonably sought to avoid awardees being unable to compete for task orders during the anticipated CMMC Phase 2 implementation. GAO dismissed as untimely the protester’s later-raised argument based on DOD’s post-closing suspension of CMMC Phase 2 requirements, noting it was raised more than 10 days after the suspension memo issued.
The protesters are represented by Craig A. Holman and Roee Talmor of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (Kearney); Adam A. Bartolanzo, Alfred M. Wurglitz, Lauren S. Fleming, and C. Peter Dungan of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. (NextGen); Olivia L. Lynch, William B. O’Reilly, and Adina B. Nelson of Crowell & Moring LLP (Integral); and Thomas M. Dunlap, Hyung Gyu Sun, and Chadwick D. Rogers of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC (Alpha Tech). The government is represented by Wade L. Brown, Jonathan A. Hardage, Brittany N. York, Andrew S. Waggoner, Adam R. Bosse, Gregory S. Miller, Amanda N. Wojciechowski, Dair Pillai, and Jacquelyn Weih of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.