You're in the blog post editor. Let me pull the H2 brief content from the transcript so you can paste it in.Here's everything you need. Fill in the post editor:

Title field:

H2 Technology Group v. Department of Veterans Affairs — Protest Autopsy™

Content field — paste this entire block:

GAO: H2 Technology Group v. VA — Protest Autopsy™

Defense Signals™ | GAO Intelligence Series

THE COLD OPEN

A Huntsville small business lost a VA data analytics award. Then lost the protest too.

H2 Technology Group filed at GAO after the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded a DAIMO task order to ThunderYard Liberty JV. GAO reviewed the record and denied every ground.

The question isn't whether the protest was worth filing. The question is: what was in that proposal that made the evaluation so easy to defend?

PROTEST AUTOPSY™

Case: H2 Technology Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs GAO File: B-423777.1 Decision Date: January 16, 2026 Awardee: ThunderYard Liberty JV, LLC Outcome: Protest denied — all grounds

What H2 Argued: The VA's technical evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFQ.

What GAO Found: The evaluation was reasonable, documented, and consistent with stated criteria. No basis to sustain any ground.

The Real Lesson: H2 didn't lose at GAO. H2 lost when the proposal was submitted.

PROPOSAL Rx™

Diagnosis: Technical quotation insufficient to disrupt a defensible evaluation.

Prescribed: Pre-submission evaluation simulation. Before you submit, score your own proposal the way an evaluator would. Identify every gap, every vague claim, every place a competitor could outscore you.

Dosage: One internal red team per proposal — not a review, not a proofread. Someone reading your proposal looking for reasons to score it lower.

Warning: A protest is not a second proposal. You cannot introduce at GAO what you failed to demonstrate in your quote.

Join The Signal Room — $97/month

Defense Signals™ | GAO Intelligence Series — Case No. 1