U.S. Customs and Border Protection can keep building waterborne barriers along the Rio Grande after the Government Accountability Office dismissed a protest from BCCG JV challenging a $641,277,600 sole-source task order to Cochrane USA Inc. The decision, docketed as B-424377, was issued June 22 and publicly released June 26, 2026. It removes a legal obstacle from one of the larger physical-barrier procurements CBP has moved on this year and leaves Cochrane USA, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, with a clear path to design and construct the work.
Background
The disputed order covers the Rio Grande Valley-3 segment, known in CBP planning shorthand as RGV-3, an approximately 125-mile stretch of the southwest border. Unlike the steel bollard fencing that dominates much of the border-infrastructure conversation, the RGV-3 scope centers on waterborne barriers — structures engineered to function in or across water, a category that raises distinct design, permitting, and hydrology questions compared with land-based fencing. CBP issued the task order on March 5, 2026, under an existing multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, assigning it a not-to-exceed total value of $641,277,600.
BCCG JV, a joint venture based in Montgomery, Alabama, did not win the order and filed a protest at GAO. The venture raised two principal lines of attack. First, it argued that CBP improperly issued the task order on a sole-source basis to Cochrane USA rather than competing it, contending that the agency's barrier waiver did not extend to waterborne barriers. Second, it alleged that the award violated organizational-conflict-of-interest (OCI) restrictions — pointing to Cochrane USA's employment of a former CBP acquisition program manager who had previously overseen border-barrier projects in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. GAO dismissed the protest, allowing the order to stand.
The procurement sits apart from the border-technology programs GovConFeed has tracked in recent months. This is a heavy construction effort — concrete, steel, and water engineering — awarded through an IDIQ vehicle and aimed at a specific geographic segment rather than a sensor or screening capability deployed border-wide.
Key Details
The headline number is the $641,277,600 not-to-exceed ceiling, a figure that places RGV-3 among the substantial single task orders in CBP's barrier portfolio. Because the work was ordered under an existing IDIQ rather than as a standalone contract, the competitive landscape was already narrowed to the holders of that underlying vehicle, and the dispute turned on how CBP exercised its ordering discretion within it.
BCCG JV's sole-source objection challenged CBP's decision to direct the order to Cochrane USA without holding a competition among eligible IDIQ holders, arguing that the agency's waiver authority did not reach the waterborne portion of the work. Agencies retain authority to issue sole-source task orders in defined circumstances, but that authority is bounded by regulation and by the terms of the underlying contract, and protesters frequently test whether the agency stayed inside those limits. BCCG JV's OCI argument added a second theory: that Cochrane USA's hire of a former CBP official who had managed Rio Grande Valley barrier projects created a conflict that should have disqualified it or required mitigation before any award.
GAO resolved the matter with a dismissal rather than a decision on the merits. A dismissal differs from a denial. When GAO denies a protest, it has reviewed the substantive arguments and found the agency acted reasonably. Here, GAO dismissed the sole-source challenge on jurisdictional grounds, finding that disputes over CBP's border-barrier waiver authority under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act lie exclusively with the federal district courts rather than GAO. It dismissed the OCI allegation for lack of a sufficient factual and legal basis, noting that the former CBP program manager had left the agency in December 2022, more than three years before the task order issued. The published outcome records the dismissal of B-424377; it does not, on its face, validate or reject the broader technical substance of BCCG JV's theories.
That distinction matters for the practical effect. With the protest dismissed and no sustain on the books, CBP faces no GAO-ordered corrective action tied to this docket. Cochrane USA can move forward on the RGV-3 design-and-construction effort, and the $641.3 million ceiling remains intact as issued on March 5.
What It Means for Contractors
The case is a reminder of how narrow the protest lane is for task orders placed under an IDIQ, and how border-barrier work in particular can fall outside GAO's reach. GAO's authority to hear task-order protests is constrained by statute, and the IIRIRA waiver framework can route certain border-barrier disputes to the district courts entirely. Contractors weighing a protest of a sole-source order should map their theory against those jurisdictional and procedural limits before filing, because a strong-sounding merits argument does no good if the protest cannot survive a dismissal motion.
For firms that hold seats on large construction IDIQs, the outcome underscores the value of the vehicle itself. Once an agency selects an IDIQ as its ordering path, the contest over individual orders often plays out inside a small pool of holders, and an agency's sole-source ordering decisions carry real weight. Competing successfully for the underlying contract — and staying eligible across its categories — frequently determines who is in the room when a nine-figure order lands.
OCI remains a live but demanding ground. Allegations that an awardee's other engagements created a conflict can succeed, but they require a concrete factual showing rather than inference, and the passage of time since an official's departure can undercut them. BCCG JV's pairing of a sole-source challenge with an OCI theory reflects a common two-track strategy; the dismissal shows that combining theories does not by itself guarantee a hearing on the merits.
Finally, the order signals continued CBP demand for specialized border construction beyond sensors and screening. Waterborne barriers call for engineering depth that not every fencing contractor carries, and the RGV-3 ceiling suggests sustained funding for physical infrastructure on the southwest border. Firms with relevant marine, hydrology, and heavy-civil capabilities have a concrete reason to position for the IDIQ vehicles CBP is using to place this work.
