GAO Denies Brandan Enterprises’ Protest over Visitor Services Task Order at Arlington Cemetery

In a June 16, 2025 decision, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest filed by Brandan Enterprises, Inc. (BEI) concerning the award of a Department of the Army task order to Quality Innovation, Inc. (Qi2) for visitor operations services at Arlington National Cemetery. The case, Brandan Enterprises, Inc., B-423385, arose from BEI’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal and the conduct of discussions during a task order competition under a multiple-award IDIQ contract.

The procurement, conducted under FAR Subpart 16.5, sought a fixed-price task order with cost-reimbursable items for a base year and three option years. BEI, whose proposal was the lowest-priced among three competitors, received a “Good” technical rating, while Qi2 received an “Outstanding” rating at a significantly higher price. The Army identified a significant weakness in BEI’s proposal: an insufficient number of labor hours to fully staff all positions and accomplish the pre- and post-shift responsibilities detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Despite being warned in discussions, BEI chose not to revise its labor hour estimates, maintaining that its staffing plan met all requirements and additional hours would be wasteful.

GAO rejected BEI’s claim that discussions were misleading or inadequate. According to GAO, the Army’s evaluation notice clearly identified the perceived shortfall in proposed labor hours and directed BEI to address the issue. BEI responded with a detailed justification for its staffing model but elected not to increase its labor hours. GAO emphasized that agencies are not required to “spoon-feed” offerors in discussions and found the Army’s exchange with BEI to be meaningful and fair.

BEI also alleged that the Army used outdated or inflated historical staffing data and imposed unstated evaluation criteria by expecting staffing for tasks not specified in the PWS. GAO dismissed these arguments, noting that the solicitation explicitly advised offerors that staffing plans would be assessed against historical labor hours and that any deviations would need to be justified. Moreover, GAO found that the PWS did include multiple pre- and post-shift responsibilities—such as equipment checks, access control duties, and equipment transportation—that were not adequately accounted for in BEI’s staffing plan.

On the matter of evaluation reasonableness, GAO held that the Army’s decision to assign a significant weakness to BEI’s proposal was supported by the record. BEI’s calculation of hours focused narrowly on the hours staff would be physically present at post positions from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., omitting necessary preparatory and concluding activities. GAO upheld the Army’s conclusion that this posed a material risk to performance, especially given the non-self-breaking nature of many posts and the requirement to ensure 100 percent post coverage.

Finally, GAO found no basis to object to the Army’s best-value tradeoff. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) conducted a reasoned comparison and justified paying a premium for Qi2’s higher-rated proposal based on its stronger technical merits and reduced risk. BEI’s assertions that the award decision failed to properly weigh price and strengths in its proposal were considered derivative of its failed evaluation arguments and were accordingly dismissed.

This decision highlights for federal contractors the critical importance of accurately interpreting staffing requirements, especially when historical benchmarks are provided. It also underscores that agencies have wide discretion in evaluating task order proposals and that meaningful discussions need not address every nuance—only those sufficient to guide offerors to areas of concern. BEI’s failure to heed the agency’s warnings regarding labor hours, combined with a narrow interpretation of the PWS, ultimately doomed its protest.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult the official GAO decision or legal counsel for authoritative guidance.