On January 27, 2026, the Government Accountability Office sustained protests from Amentum Technology Inc. and SOS International LLC (SOSi) challenging the Defense Intelligence Agency's award of a USCENTCOM intelligence analysis support contract to General Dynamics IT (GDIT). The decision — Amentum Technology Inc.; SOS International LLC, B-423898 et al. — is instructive for any contractor preparing to file a protest. Coverage from Government Contracts Legal Forum.
The two grounds GAO sustained
The case featured two distinct sustained grounds, each representing a different type of agency failure:
1. Unequal treatment of offerors
Amentum argued — and GAO agreed — that the agency held Amentum to a different standard than GDIT. Amentum's proposal provided more detail and more rigor on an approach, but the agency recognized a strength in GDIT's less-detailed version while failing to credit Amentum with an equivalent or greater strength. The asymmetric treatment was sustainable error.
2. Downgrades based on words the offeror never said
SOSi's protest succeeded on a different ground: DIA downgraded SOSi for purportedly discussing "legacy networks that have been decommissioned over 8 years." The problem: SOSi's proposal never referenced those networks. Attributing unfavorable content to a proposal that didn't contain it is sustainable error.
What the lesson is for future protests
Three actionable takeaways from this decision:
- Obtain and review the full agency evaluation record. Both sustain grounds required detailed comparison of the evaluator's language against the proposal language. Without the full record, these errors are invisible.
- Unequal treatment is particularly sustainable when similarly-situated proposals receive different treatment. If the protester's proposal addressed a feature more thoroughly than the awardee's, and only the awardee received credit, that's sustainable.
- Mis-attribution of proposal content is rare but distinctive. When it happens, it tends to be obvious once you compare evaluator notes to proposal text. If your proposal was evaluated against claims you didn't make, file.
Related April 2026 sustain: Effective Communications Strategy v. Army Corps
In April 2026, GAO also sustained a protest by Effective Communications Strategy, LLC challenging the Army Corps of Engineers' compressed response times on a rapidly-amended solicitation. Per Government Contracts Law's coverage, the agency shifted solicitation requirements with insufficient time for offerors to respond. GAO recommended the agency amend the solicitation, re-evaluate, and potentially terminate the existing contract for convenience.
That case reinforces a separate but related principle: agencies can't make significant mid-solicitation changes without giving offerors a meaningful opportunity to respond.
What to do this week
- Read the full GAO recent decisions list weekly. Each sustain is a template for identifying similar patterns in your own competitive losses.
- If you've lost a recent competition where the award decision seems asymmetric or the evaluation seems to attribute claims you didn't make, order the agency evaluation record promptly. The protest filing window is short.
- See our broader analysis: GAO sustained 14% of merit decisions in FY25 — and where protests are actually winning.