The Pentagon's new academic skills training contract for service members could be taken back from the company that won it. GAO found that the winning proposal never addressed a required offline mode for the course's mobile app, and that evaluators accepted it based on a marketing text box about a Labor Department program. In a decision dated Sept. 25, 2026, GAO sustained the protest of Peterson's LLC of Greenwood Village, Colorado. Peterson's had challenged the Department of Defense Personnel Readiness Management Agency's (PRMA) award to Vantage Point Consulting, Inc. (VPC) of Portland, Oregon, under RFP No. H9821026RE002 (B-424599; B-424599.2).
GAO recommended that PRMA re-evaluate VPC's technical proposal. If the proposal is found unacceptable, GAO recommended that PRMA terminate VPC's contract for convenience and make a new source selection. That outcome could favor Peterson's, whose evaluated price was nearly twice VPC's.
What the DANTES Academic Skills Training Contract Buys
The work supports the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES), a PRMA component that runs voluntary education programs for troops. Academic skills training (AST) is a college and career readiness program covering math, English and science. Service members use it to qualify for college course placement, reclassification, advanced training and military advancement.
PRMA issued the RFP on Feb. 23, 2026, as a small-business set-aside under FAR parts 12 and 15. It sought a commercially available, computer-adaptive, asynchronous web-based course. The solicitation called for a fixed-price contract with a one-year base period and four one-year options. Technical capability was the most important factor, followed by past performance and price. Eight proposals arrived by the March 30 deadline.
Evaluators rated VPC's proposal outstanding on technical capability and gave it substantial confidence on past performance, at an evaluated price of $7,882,561. Peterson's was rated good and substantial, at $14,741,299. VPC was the only offeror to earn the top technical rating, and its price was lower than the next-highest-rated proposals. The source selection authority called VPC's offer "clearly the superior choice."
PRMA awarded the contract on June 12. USAspending records list it as contract H9821026CE005, "DANTES Academic Skills Training (AST)." It shows $1,453,034.04 obligated, a base-and-all-options value of $7,121,773.08, and a period of performance from June 30, 2026, to June 29, 2027, with a potential end date of June 29, 2031. Peterson's received a written debriefing on June 15 and filed its protest on June 22.
How a Labor Department Text Box Stood In for PWS Section 4.1.6
Section 4.1.6 of the performance work statement required the course mobile application "to be accessed and used in non-network environments." The app had to store course progress and user data locally and then sync automatically with the hosted application once the user reconnected and logged in.
VPC proposed SPARK, which it described as an AI-powered system for authoring, delivering, assessing and managing courses. GAO found that the technical proposal never addressed the offline requirement. The only possible support was a blue text box headed "A Federal Agency Already Proved This Works." It described the Department of Labor's Make America AI-Ready initiative, a workforce training program delivered entirely through daily text messages, with no video and no learning management system. According to the text box, workers could complete the program on any phone "without internet access."
GAO held a hearing, and the testimony showed how the deficiency disappeared. The technical evaluation board (TEB) chairperson, working as an individual evaluator, first gave VPC a significant weakness for not addressing offline access and later raised it to a deficiency. The deficiency was left out of the TEB report after another evaluator pointed the chairperson to the Make America AI-Ready text box. Asked how the board read that passage, the chairperson testified: "We're going to do what they did. It's going to work offline. That's how we interpreted it."
Why GAO Rejected the "Same Model" Reading
GAO said the agency's reading had no basis in the proposal. "VPC's proposal did not address the material PWS requirement for offline course access, and the agency made unreasonable assumptions about what was being offered by VPC," the decision states.
Nothing in the proposal says VPC offered a product to DOL or took part in the initiative. VPC intervened in the protest and did not claim any involvement with the program. GAO added that even if VPC had been involved, the text box focused on content and delivery methods. "To the extent that offline capabilities were discussed at all, it was a passing reference that included no context or elaboration as to how VPC's proposal would meet the detailed requirements of PWS section 4.1.6," GAO wrote.
The agency also argued that SPARK followed the "same model" as the DOL program. GAO rejected that too, and noted that the argument creates a different problem. The RFP required a web-based course available online, while the DOL product was delivered entirely through text messages.
PRMA's own record made the offline requirement hard to wave away. The TEB chairperson testified that the requirement was material. PRMA had also rated a different offeror unacceptable for the same gap, finding that proposal "unawardable due to a critical deficiency" for failing to provide an offline solution. Six remaining proposals were technically acceptable, and non-price factors outweighed price. On that basis, GAO found a substantial possibility that Peterson's would be in line for award, which established prejudice.
Re-Evaluation, Possible Termination and Protest Costs
"We recommend that PRMA conduct a new evaluation of VPC's proposal under the technical capability factor consistent with the terms of the RFP, applicable procurement law and regulation, and this decision," GAO wrote. The agency should document the reevaluation. If VPC is found technically unacceptable, GAO recommended that PRMA terminate the contract for convenience, run a new best-value tradeoff among the remaining acceptable proposals and issue a new source selection decision. GAO also recommended that PRMA reimburse Peterson's reasonable protest costs, including attorneys' fees. Peterson's should submit certified claims directly to the agency within 60 days of receiving the decision.
GAO reviewed Peterson's other challenges and found them without merit. The offline-access issue was the only ground sustained. Piliero Mazza, PLLC represented Peterson's, and Holland & Knight LLP represented VPC.
What It Means for Contractors
When an agency's own evaluator flags a deficiency that later disappears from the consensus report, that gap is a strong protest target. Here a hearing exposed the reasoning behind it. Offerors should answer every "shall" requirement in the PWS directly, by section number. Case studies and marketing callouts do not count as a compliance response, and GAO will not let evaluators read capabilities into a proposal that its text does not state. Agencies should also note that rating one offeror unacceptable for missing a requirement, then excusing the same gap for the awardee, creates exactly the inconsistency protesters look for.
