GAO Denies SOS International’s Protest Over Army Cyber Task Order Evaluation
In a significant decision issued on June 11, 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest of SOS International, LLC (SOSI) in B-423366.2, which contested the Department of the Army’s award of a task order to Peraton, Inc. for IT support services at the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC). SOSI’s protest centered on allegations that the Army’s evaluation of its oral presentation was unreasonable, inadequately documented, and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. However, the GAO concluded that the Army’s evaluation process was sound, well-documented, and in full compliance with FAR subpart 16.5 procedures.
The solicitation was issued to firms holding the Army’s ITES-Services IDIQ contract, with the award structured as a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order. The procurement followed a two-phased approach. Phase I focused on prior experience and key personnel resumes, requiring a “high confidence” rating in both to proceed. Phase II included evaluation of a betterment proposal, oral presentation, and cost/price. The oral presentation carried critical weight—any rating below “high confidence” resulted in disqualification from award consideration.
SOSI advanced to Phase II but received only a “some confidence” rating for its oral presentation. The Army based this rating on perceived deficiencies in five of the nine questions posed during SOSI’s presentation. Although SOSI contended that its answers were technically sound and that the Army’s evaluation lacked fidelity and fairness, GAO upheld the agency’s evaluation process. GAO emphasized that the Army had provided each offeror with scenario-based questions just two hours before their presentations and permitted interactive sessions without constituting discussions that could alter proposals.
Crucially, GAO found no requirement for the Army to record the oral presentations, noting that FAR subpart 16.5 encourages streamlined processes, unlike the more rigorous documentation standards of FAR part 15. The Army’s use of contemporaneous evaluator notes, panel discussions to reach consensus, and thorough documentation in its final report met the required standard. GAO also rejected SOSI’s argument that illegibility or inconsistency in individual evaluator notes invalidated the outcome, finding that consensus ratings reasonably reflected the agency’s judgment.
Two specific oral questions illustrate GAO’s rationale. In response to a question about Army365 tenant management and the use of Microsoft tools, SOSI allegedly failed to offer a technical solution or demonstrate how its approach would improve end-user experience—focusing instead on internal administrative tools. For a second question about constructing a zero-trust model using Azure and Entra ID, the Army found that SOSI’s answer relied on outdated Active Directory approaches and did not incorporate cloud-native features as required. SOSI’s recollection of these exchanges conflicted with the actual record, further weakening its protest.
Because SOSI did not achieve a qualifying rating on the oral presentation, it was excluded from the best-value tradeoff analysis. Consequently, GAO dismissed SOSI’s remaining challenges—including claims regarding the betterment factor, organizational conflicts of interest concerning Peraton, and SOSI’s exclusion from the final award decision. GAO found that SOSI was not an “interested party” under the rules because even if its protest succeeded, another offeror (not SOSI) would be next in line for award.
The decision reaffirms GAO’s deference to agencies under FAR 16.5, particularly regarding oral presentations and streamlined evaluation procedures. It also reinforces that bidders must meet clearly defined minimum thresholds to remain eligible, and that disagreement with an agency’s qualitative judgments—without strong evidence of inconsistency or bias—is unlikely to prevail.
Disclaimer: This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While care has been taken to ensure accuracy, readers should consult the full GAO decision and applicable regulations before drawing legal or strategic conclusions.
