This is one of many analyses on competitions as featured in our “Deadly Sins” series. We periodically pick up and analyze protests to offer observations on competitions to learn from these decisions as a case study in competition.
Our latest analysis breaks down the NASA best-value competition for the Wallops Range Contract (WRC), which was protested, and the GAO protest decision was published on April 30, 2026.
Quick Answer: ARES Corporation won the NASA Wallops Range Contract by outscoring a.i. solutions 850–798 on Mission Suitability, driven by a dominant Management Approach score (Excellent vs. Very Good). ARES offered five named, benefit-linked management features; a.i. solutions received a single bundled strength. The OCI (Organizational Conflict of Interest) protest grounds were denied, as NASA’s mitigation plan review was documented and within agency discretion.
Summary of the Competition and Protest
ARES Corporation beat a.i. solutions at NASA Wallops Flight Facility for the Wallops Range Contract (WRC) by dominating the most heavily weighted factor with five specific, evaluator-friendly management strengths versus one bundled technical strength. The protest that followed focused on the management subfactor (part of the Mission Suitability Score) and OCI (Organizational Conflict of Interest) allegations. Let’s break down what happened and what we can learn from this competition.
The Overall Evaluation
| Evaluation Criteria | Subfactor | Max Points | ARES (Awardee) | a.i. solutions (Protester) |
| Mission Suitability | Management Approach | 500 | Excellent | Very Good |
| Mission Suitability | Technical Approach | 400 | Good | Good |
| Mission Suitability | Small Business Utilization | 100 | Excellent | Excellent |
| Mission Suitability Total | 1,000 | 850 pts | 798 pts | |
| Past Performance | — | N/A | Very High | Very High |
| Cost/Price | Probable Cost | N/A | $88,493,562 | $89,815,197 |
Management Approach: The Decisive Factor
Management Approach was worth 500 of 1,000 Mission Suitability points, making it the single most valuable subfactor in this competition. ARES scored an Excellent. a.i. solutions received a Very Good. This scoring gap decided the award. What created it?
ARES gave evaluators five very detailed features of its management approach. Each feature was detailed and could be translated into a tangible benefit.
- “Shark-Tank” innovation program — This was proposed as an internal mechanism for employee-generated process improvements, institutionalizing continuous improvement beyond standard contract management.
- Employee incentive and recognition program — This was detailed as a structured approach to drive retention in a specialized technical environment where personnel continuity directly affects mission readiness…operating in a remote area with a specialized workforce means you absolutely need to ensure retention of the workforce because replacing them is difficult and presents risk to operations.
- Concurrent operations via “GO-Teams” — These dedicated teams are structured to support simultaneous range operations, reducing scheduling bottlenecks as NASA’s launch tempo at Wallops increases.
- Staggered shift coverage — Use shift configurations that maintain continuous qualified operator presence across all operational windows. This is not revolutionary, but it reflects thoughtfulness in balancing shifts with a workforce that can handle any situation, even on less favorable shifts, when it may be more difficult to have experienced staff take on less desirable work times.
- Parallel reconfiguration capability — This is just a process to reconfigure range assets simultaneously rather than sequentially, reducing turnaround time and increasing throughput.
There was nothing revolutionary proposed by ARES. This is not to take away from their solution. It’s simple and pragmatic. More importantly, the core benefits they offered focused on:
- Risk mitigation
- Continuous improvement
Takeaway: The risk mitigation theme is significant here because you do NOT want to be the cause for launches to be canceled. You, as the contractor, are supposed to be the enabler of mission and not this impediment. ARES demonstrated to NASA that it is their best chance for reliable launch operations.
Where Did a.i. solutions Go Grong?
We don’t read much detail into what a.i solutions offered outside of a single strength in the Technical Approach subfactor (under Mission Suitability), a.i. solutions received one bundled strength for its iterative maintenance and sustainment planning strategy. Understand that a.i. solutions protested that bundling as score suppression, GAO upheld the agency’s discretion to consolidate related proposal elements into a single strength.
The reality is, we don’t know exactly what a.i. solutions offered outside of the fact that ARES’s offer was deemed much more detailed and a.i. solutions offer may have been vaguer.
Takeaway: You don’t win by writing a compelling management story. You win by giving evaluators specific things to count. Features and benefits. Name them. Own them. Make the evaluator’s job easy.
OCI Allegations: Why They Failed
a.i. solutions built a significant portion of its protest around OCI — arguing that ARES had a conflict of interest from its role supporting NASA’s Range Safety function under its Safety and Mission Assurance (SMAS) III contract, that the OCI mitigation plan was inadequate, and that NASA should have re-evaluated proposals once ARES neutralized the conflict.
GAO denied all of it. Here’s why this outcome was predictable before the decision was ever written.
When an agency reviews an OCI mitigation plan and determines it is acceptable, GAO will very rarely second-guess that judgment unless the agency’s reasoning is blatantly unreasonable — and the bar for “unreasonable” is high. NASA reviewed ARES’s plan, accepted it, and proceeded. That sequence, documented in the record, is almost airtight.
Editorial note: Agencies have enormous discretion in OCI determinations. Better yet, the GAO typically gives agencies wide latitude to make OCI determinations. In all our analyses of protests that use OCI as a basis for the protest, it is very rare for OCI to lead to a sustained protest. Mind you that we are NOT attorneys, and this opinion is NOT ANY ATTEMPT at legal advice. Do your own research if you disagree. We offer analysis and opinions to offer help to empower your success.
The FedSavvy Takeaway
- The WRC is a blueprint for how to win a best-value competition on the highest-weighted factor: study the operational environment, name your solutions specifically, and build a management proposal that reads like a ledger — countable features and benefits that are easy to score.
- Features and benefits that give details of “how and why” that show how you drive down risk, elevate your prospects to win.
- OCI-based protests are a hard road. Agencies have broad discretion to evaluate and accept mitigation plans, and GAO gives them the benefit of the doubt when the record shows the work was done. Before you bet your protest on OCI, ask honestly: is the mitigation record truly thin, or does the agency just have a different view than you do? If it’s the latter, you’re likely wasting your money on a protest that is very likely to fail.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did ARES Corporation win the NASA Wallops Range Contract? ARES won by dominating the Management Approach subfactor — worth 500 of 1,000 Mission Suitability points — with five specific, evaluator-friendly features: a Shark-Tank innovation program, an employee incentive and recognition program, GO-Teams for concurrent operations, staggered shift coverage, and parallel reconfiguration capability. These features directly addressed risk mitigation and operational continuity, earning ARES an Excellent rating versus a.i. solutions’ Very Good.
Why did a.i. solutions lose the WRC competition? a.i. solutions received only one bundled strength in its proposal and its Management Approach scored Very Good rather than Excellent. It protested that bundling as score suppression, but GAO upheld the agency’s discretion to consolidate related proposal elements. The key lesson: vague or consolidated proposal elements give evaluators less to count — and fewer counted strengths means a lower score.
Do OCI protests succeed at GAO? Rarely. GAO gives agencies broad discretion on OCI determinations. When an agency reviews a mitigation plan, accepts it, and documents the process, GAO will generally not second-guess that judgment unless the reasoning is blatantly unreasonable. In the WRC protest, NASA reviewed and accepted ARES’s OCI mitigation plan, and GAO denied all OCI-related protest grounds.
What makes a strong management approach in a federal government proposal? Name specific features, not general strategies, and link each to a tangible operational benefit focused on risk reduction. Evaluators award strengths for things they can count and describe. A proposal with five named, benefit-linked features will almost always outscore one with one or two broad themes, even if the underlying capabilities are comparable.
