Background: DIA’s $814M Intelligence Support Contract

In early 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) solicited bids under its SITE III contract vehicle for a major analytical support task order with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)[1][2]. The work involves supporting CENTCOM’s Joint Intelligence Operations Center (JIOC) at MacDill Air Force Base, a fusion center responsible for current intelligence analysis, collection management, and long-range threat assessments[3]. General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) was initially awarded the five-year contract, valued at roughly $814–815 million, after being rated “High Confidence” on the technical factor[4]. Rival bidders SOS International (SOSi) and Amentum, who also competed for the award, were rated lower and subsequently filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO)[5][6].

Oral Presentations Under Scrutiny

Notably, the DIA had required offerors to deliver their technical proposals via oral presentations rather than written submissions[7]. Each bidder received a set of multi-part technical questions and a scenario, with 72 hours to prepare their presentation[8]. These oral sessions were recorded by the agency – a decision that would later prove critical. Both SOSi and Amentum’s protests argued that DIA’s evaluators unfairly assessed weaknesses in their proposals that were not supported by what was actually said during the presentations[5]. In essence, the protesters leveraged the audio recordings as evidence to show that certain evaluation critiques were unfounded[9]. This move paid off: the GAO’s review heavily relied on the recorded presentations to investigate the fairness and accuracy of the evaluation process[5].

GAO Findings: Errors in Evaluation

GAO’s decision, unsealed in early February 2026, revealed clear inconsistencies between DIA’s evaluation record and the content of the offerors’ oral proposals[10][11]. One major issue was with DIA’s lone “decreased confidence” mark against SOSi. Evaluators had penalized SOSi for allegedly referencing a decommissioned legacy network (a version of the CENTRIXS system) during its presentation[12]. SOSi flatly denied ever mentioning that obsolete network, and the GAO found that the audio tape backed SOSi’s account: nowhere in SOSi’s recorded presentation was the defunct system named[13]. As GAO wrote, “the agency asks us to accept the decreased confidence finding… yet offers nothing from the audio recordings” to support it[10]. In GAO’s view, there was “no support for the agency’s conclusion that SOSi relied on an outdated system” in its proposal[10].

A second flaw concerned Amentum’s evaluation. DIA had given Amentum a lower score (a “Some Confidence” rating) partly because it supposedly failed to address “upskilling” the incumbent workforce in its approach[14]. Amentum argued that this criticism was applied unevenly – claiming it was held to a higher standard than GDIT – and that it did in fact discuss workforce development in its presentation[15]. Again, GAO’s analysis of the presentation recordings upheld the protester’s claim. The audio clearly showed Amentum did talk about upskilling the workforce, proposing development plans comparable to those of GDIT[11]. In short, GAO concluded that several of the agency’s negative findings for SOSi and Amentum were unjustified and unsupported by the record[10][11].

Re-Evaluation Ordered After Protest

Given these findings, GAO sustained both protests[16]. In its decision, GAO directed DIA to re-evaluate the proposals in accordance with the original solicitation criteria and to make a new source selection decision with proper documentation[17][18]. This means the massive contract award is now in flux pending a corrected review. If upon re-evaluation DIA determines a different offeror should have won, GAO recommended that the $814 million task order to GDIT be terminated for the convenience of the government and awarded to the rightful winner[18]. Additionally, GAO instructed the agency to reimburse SOSi’s and Amentum’s costs for filing and pursuing the protests (including legal fees), underscoring the validity of the contractors’ challenge[19].

GAO’s decision didn’t just stop at correcting this particular award – it also sounded a warning for future acquisitions. The case highlights that when agencies use oral presentations, they must rigorously document their evaluations and tie their conclusions to specific evidence from those presentations[20]. In the DIA protest, the existence of detailed audio recordings was pivotal. The lesson for procurement officials is clear: without a well-documented record (in this instance, the recordings themselves and accurate evaluator notes), evaluation judgments can be successfully called into question[20]. This ultimately protects contractors by ensuring agencies are held accountable to the stated evaluation criteria.

Implications for Federal Subcontractors

While this protest involved large prime contractors, its outcome carries important implications for subcontractors in the federal market. Major contract awards often have entire teams of subcontractors in tow, so when an award decision is overturned or re-evaluated, those teaming arrangements can suddenly change. In the DIA case, for example, if the award shifts away from GDIT, any subcontractors aligned under GDIT’s team might lose that work share, whereas subs partnered with SOSi or Amentum could suddenly find new opportunities if their team wins on re-evaluation. The uncertainty of a protest means all companies – big and small – need to stay alert and adaptable. Key points for subcontractors include:

Stay Informed on Contract Outcomes: Even after an award is announced, it’s crucial to monitor for protests and GAO decisions. A sustained protest can reopen a competition, directly affecting subcontracting opportunities.
Document and Communicate Contributions: If you are involved in proposal development or oral presentations as a subcontractor, ensure that your team’s input is clearly communicated and recorded. This helps the prime contractor address any agency misunderstandings and protects your interests if evaluations are disputed.
Choose Teaming Partners Wisely: The protest highlights the importance of a fair and thorough evaluation. When selecting prime contractors to team with, consider their track record in proposals and protests. A diligent prime that prepares comprehensive, well-documented proposals (and is willing to challenge unfair awards) can mean a more stable outcome for everyone on the team.
Have a Contingency Plan: If a contract you’re supporting is protested, be prepared for potential delays or changes. Maintain flexibility to pivot if the government revisits the award decision.

Overall, GAO sustaining this protest is a positive sign for fairness in federal procurements. It reinforces that agencies must follow the rules and back up their assessments with evidence, which ultimately benefits the entire contracting community, including subcontractors, by promoting a level playing field.

As federal subcontractors navigate these complex contracting dynamics, staying updated on protest outcomes and leveraging the right tools is essential. Procura can help in this regard – it’s an AI-powered federal contract search and analysis platform that continuously scans for new opportunities and updates in the federal market. By using Procura to track solicitations and award changes, small business contractors and subcontractors can react quickly to developments like recompetes or new task order awards. With tools like Procura, you can focus on positioning your business for success – even as contract landscapes shift – and ensure you’re ready to capitalize on opportunities when they arise.[21][22]