GAO Denies and Dismisses AIX Tech Protest over DISA Task Order Award to DSG
In a decision dated June 11, 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) resolved a protest filed by AIX Tech, LLC regarding a task order awarded by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to Defense Solutions Group, LLC (DSG) under the ENCORE III IDIQ contract. The protest raised several challenges to DISA’s evaluation of DSG’s proposal and alleged a conflict of interest due to a personal relationship between a DISA contracting officer and an executive of a DSG joint venture member. Ultimately, GAO dismissed most of AIX’s protest as legally insufficient or speculative and denied the remaining ground regarding the conflict of interest.
The task order at issue sought strategic advisory support for DISA’s program executive office transport. The award was based on a best-value tradeoff between technical/management approach and price, with technical factors weighted more heavily. AIX, whose proposal cost $107.5 million, was passed over in favor of DSG’s lower-priced $58.8 million offer. DISA found DSG’s proposal to be “slightly technically superior” and “significantly lower priced,” resulting in its selection for award.
AIX’s protest hinged on two broad arguments: that DSG’s significantly lower price should have rendered its proposal technically deficient, and that DISA failed to properly investigate or mitigate an alleged conflict of interest. GAO rejected the pricing-related protest grounds as speculative. AIX failed to offer any concrete evidence from DSG’s proposal to support its contention that the lower price necessarily meant inadequate staffing or insufficient technical quality. Instead, AIX based its claims solely on the price differential and generalized skepticism about DSG’s ability to deliver.
GAO emphasized that DISA’s solicitation allowed for different performance approaches and did not require a price realism analysis. In fixed-price procurements like this one, agencies are not obligated to analyze whether low prices might affect performance feasibility unless specifically stated in the solicitation. Without such a requirement, even a significantly lower bid does not, by itself, create grounds for protest. The GAO also dismissed AIX’s argument that DISA conducted a lowest-price technically acceptable evaluation instead of the stated best-value analysis, pointing to the record which clearly showed DISA had considered both price and technical merits in its tradeoff decision.
The most serious remaining allegation was AIX’s claim that DSG should have been disqualified due to a conflict of interest stemming from a marital relationship between a DISA contracting officer and the CEO of LightGrid, one of DSG’s joint venture members. GAO found no merit in this claim either. DISA investigated the matter thoroughly—interviewing relevant personnel, reviewing system logs, and examining the contracting officer’s and contracting officer’s representative’s roles—and determined the contracting officer in question had no involvement in the procurement and did not access or share procurement-related materials.
GAO stressed that a familial relationship, by itself, does not constitute a conflict of interest or even the appearance of impropriety unless accompanied by evidence of involvement or undue influence in the procurement process. AIX presented no such evidence, and the agency’s internal controls, including disclosure and access records, supported the conclusion that the award was not tainted.
In sum, GAO dismissed AIX’s challenges to the evaluation and best-value decision as factually and legally insufficient, while denying the remaining allegation concerning the conflict of interest. This decision reinforces longstanding GAO precedent: protests must be grounded in specific facts, not speculation, and allegations of conflicts must be supported by more than mere suspicion.
Disclaimer: This blog post summarizes a GAO legal decision for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and its accuracy is not guaranteed. Readers should consult the official GAO decision or a legal advisor for authoritative guidance.
