The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued an important new decision addressing the rights of small businesses to compete through teaming arrangements for large, consolidated federal contracts. In Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions, Inc., B-424433.3, et al. (Aug. 11, 2026), GAO sustained a protest challenging the Army’s prohibition on small business prime contractors forming teams with other small business subcontractors.

The decision is significant because GAO rejected the Army’s position that an agency may satisfy the Small Business Act simply by permitting small business joint ventures while excluding small business prime/subcontractor teams. GAO concluded that the choice between those two structures belongs to the small business offeror — not the procuring agency.

The decision also provides an important reminder for agencies conducting consolidated or multiple-award procurements: Statutory requirements designed to maximize small business participation cannot be narrowed based on an agency’s preferred contracting structure.

Background: The Army’s $50 Billion MAPS Procurement

The protest involved the Army’s Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) solicitation, RFP No. W15P7T26RA006. The MAPS procurement contemplated multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts covering five professional services domains: engineering, logistics, and operational services; research, development, test, and evaluation services; management and advisory services; emerging IT services; and foundational IT services.

The Army contemplated approximately 70 awards per domain, for as many as 350 contracts. The total contract ceiling, including the optional ordering period, was $50 billion. The procurement combined requirements previously performed under the Army’s RS3 and ITES-3S multiple-award contract vehicles.

That consolidation was central to GAO’s analysis. The MAPS solicitation stated that “[n]o teaming is permitted” and that offerors could not propose subcontractors. The solicitation nevertheless permitted joint ventures to submit proposals.

Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (ICES) challenged that distinction, arguing that the prohibition on small business teaming arrangements violated the Small Business Act and its implementing regulations. GAO agreed.

Why GAO Sustained the Protest

• The Small Business Act Protects Both Teaming Arrangements and Joint Ventures

The heart of the decision is the statutory language governing consolidated and multiple-award contracts. Section 644(e)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act provides that, for a bundled or consolidated contract, “a small business concern that provides for use of a particular team of subcontractors or a joint venture of small business concerns may submit an offer.” A related provision, 15 U.S.C. § 644(q)(1)(A), requires federal agencies conducting multiple-award contracts above the applicable substantial-bundling threshold to solicit offers from responsible sources, including “teams or joint ventures of small business concerns.”

The Army advanced a straightforward textual argument: Congress used the word “or,” so, in the Army’s view, the agency could choose between permitting small business teams and permitting small business joint ventures. GAO rejected that interpretation.

• The Critical Question: Who Gets to Choose?

GAO agreed with the Army that “or” ordinarily has a disjunctive meaning. But the agency’s argument overlooked the structure of the statutory sentence. The statute says that a small business concern may submit an offer using either a particular team of subcontractors or a joint venture of small business concerns. That distinction mattered.

GAO explained that the statute creates a right for the small business concern to submit an offer using either structure. Thus, although the statute provides a choice between two alternatives, the choice belongs to the offeror, not the agency. As GAO put it, the Army was “wrong about with whom the discretion lies.”

In practical terms, an agency cannot say that you may compete as a joint venture, but you may not compete as a small business prime contractor using a team of small business subcontractors. Instead, where the statutory requirements apply, the small business must be allowed to determine which permissible structure best enables it to compete.

• GAO Looked Beyond the Word “Or”

GAO’s analysis did not rest solely on grammar. The decision emphasized that statutes must be interpreted as a whole and in light of their underlying purpose. The Small Business Act contains a broader policy of maximizing small business participation in federal contracting.

For example, 15 U.S.C. § 644(e)(1) provides that, to the maximum extent practicable, federal procurement strategies are to facilitate maximum participation by small businesses as prime contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. The statute also requires agencies dealing with consolidated requirements to take steps to include small businesses in the acquisition strategy.

GAO reasoned that the Army’s interpretation would produce precisely the opposite result. If an agency could choose between small business teams and joint ventures, the agency could eliminate one avenue of participation for small businesses in a consolidated procurement. That would reduce rather than maximize opportunities for small businesses. GAO found that result inconsistent with the statutory framework.

• Consolidation Made Small Business Protections Especially Important

Another important aspect of the decision is the relationship between contract consolidation and small business participation. The MAPS solicitation combined two existing multiple-award contract vehicles into one procurement. GAO noted that the solicitation therefore constituted a “consolidation of contract requirements” under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. That matters because consolidation can create a structural barrier for smaller companies.

When separate requirements are combined — or “bundled” — into a larger contract vehicle, a company that could successfully perform one component of the government’s requirements may lack the resources, past performance, personnel, or technical breadth to compete for the consolidated vehicle by itself. Small business teaming arrangements can address precisely that problem. A team allows multiple small businesses to combine complementary capabilities while maintaining a small business prime contractor structure. A joint venture provides another mechanism for combining capabilities. GAO viewed the statutory framework as designed to preserve those avenues of participation — not permit an agency to eliminate one of them.

The Decision Aligns with the Federal Acquisition Regulation

GAO’s interpretation also is consistent with the current acquisition regulations. FAR 52.207-6 is titled “Solicitation of Offers from Small Business Concerns and Small Business Teaming Arrangements or Joint Ventures (Multiple-Award Contracts).” The provision defines a Small Business Teaming Arrangement to include a small business offeror that agrees with one or more other small businesses to have those companies act as subcontractors under a specified government contract. It further provides that the government will solicit and consider offers from responsible small business concerns and from Small Business Teaming Arrangements or joint ventures of small business concerns. The FAR also directs contracting officers to insert FAR 52.207-6 in solicitations for multiple-award contracts above the agency’s substantial-bundling threshold. GAO specifically noted that the MAPS solicitation did not include the corresponding RFO provision requiring solicitation of offers from small business teams or joint ventures. That regulatory omission reinforces the practical importance of the decision for agencies preparing future solicitations.

What This Means for Federal Contractors

The decision has significant implications for small businesses pursuing large federal procurements. Small businesses should carefully review solicitations that prohibit prime/subcontractor teaming, particularly when the procurement involves a consolidated or bundled requirement, a large multiple-award contract, a multiple-award contract exceeding the applicable substantial-bundling threshold, or other circumstances subject to the Small Business Act’s teaming provisions. The fact that a solicitation permits joint ventures does not necessarily cure the improper exclusion of small business teaming arrangements.

Teaming and joint ventures also can provide different strategic advantages. A small business prime/subcontractor team allows one company to remain the prime contractor while leveraging another small business’s capabilities, past performance, personnel, or specialized expertise. A joint venture, by contrast, involves a different legal and organizational structure. GAO’s decision recognizes that these alternatives are not necessarily interchangeable and that, where the statutory provisions apply, the Small Business Act protects the small business’s ability to choose between them.

Bottom Line

The Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions decision is an important development in federal small business contracting. GAO’s central holding is clear: When the Small Business Act gives small businesses the ability to compete through either a team of small business subcontractors or a joint venture, an agency cannot take that choice away by permitting only one structure.

For small businesses, the decision provides a potentially valuable protest ground when a solicitation excludes teaming arrangements from a covered consolidated or multiple-award procurement.

If you have any questions about the foregoing or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Aron Beezley or Nathaniel Greeson.