The U.S. Government Accountability Office has denied a protest by a North Carolina defense contractor claiming the Navy unfairly shifted a $41.6 million training services contract to a Florida rival by inflating its performance record.

Contractor Claims Bias in $41M Navy Deal

Advanced Computer Learning Co. LLC (ACLC), based in Fayetteville, argued that Navy evaluators gave Linchpin Solutions Inc. undeservedly positive past performance ratings, tipping the scales against ACLC’s own $42.1 million proposal.

But in a Sept. 2 ruling released Friday, the GAO concluded the Navy’s review was lawful and reasonable.

“The RFP never required past performance references to cover every task in the scope of work,” GAO attorneys wrote. “Where the agency’s method of assessing relevance is otherwise reasonable, our office does not require comparison with each subtask.”

RFP and Contract Scope

The Navy’s solicitation, issued in August 2024, sought training support services for the Joint Interoperability and Data Link Training Center and allied partners. The contract—structured as an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity award—was reserved for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, potentially lasting 66 months with an extension.

Award criteria focused on performance approach, past performance, and price under a best-value framework.

Navy Picks Linchpin

Both ACLC and Linchpin earned high marks in nonprice factors, but Linchpin won with its slightly lower cost and performance strategy.

Linchpin submitted three past performance references, including one subcontract worth far less in value. Despite that, Navy evaluators deemed it “reasonably relevant,” citing its similar design and delivery of training services. Two additional references, tied to Linchpin’s proposed subcontractor, were scored as “very relevant” and “somewhat relevant.”

The GAO said it saw no problem with the Navy’s decision to evaluate the references collectively, granting Linchpin a “substantial confidence” rating nearly equal to ACLC’s.

Navy’s Discretion and Personal Knowledge

GAO emphasized that agencies retain wide latitude in assessing contract performance. The Navy also factored in its contracting officer’s personal knowledge of both companies’ track records.

“We regard it as a matter committed to the Navy’s evaluation discretion,” the GAO wrote, “to weigh the quality of performance of each contract as a whole, even when the firm was a subcontractor. Importantly, the reported performance was wholly positive.”

Legal Teams

• Advanced Computer Learning Co. LLC: represented by Devon E. Hewitt and Matthew L. Nicholson of Potomac Law Group PLLC.

• Navy: represented internally by James J. Gross and Eric Lofquist.

• Linchpin Solutions Inc.: represented by Matthew E. Feinberg, Katherine B. Burrows, Jacqueline K. Unger, Timothy F. Valley, and Kristine E. Crallé of Piliero Mazza PLLC.

GAO attorneys Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun handled the ruling.

Parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.