Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits David Timm; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
U.S. Government Accountability Office · May 12, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision as supporting the rule that agencies may not use unstated subfactors to mechanically score proposals. GAO found that no decision existed with the cited party name and B-number combination, and that the similarly numbered Apogee Engineering decision did not address unstated evaluation criteria, subfactors, or mechanical scoring. Outcome: Warning. GAO identified multiple inaccurate legal citations in Business Integra’s protest, including citations to non-existent or mismatched decisions. The protester attributed the errors to clerical mistakes, but GAO stated that the citations bore the hallmarks of unverified use of a large-language model or other AI tool. GAO denied the protest on the merits and declined to impose sanctions, while warning that future filings containing citations to non-existent authority could lead to sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Warning in U.S. Government Accountability Office. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision as supporting the rule that agencies may not use unstated subfactors to mechanically score proposals. GAO found that no decision existed with the cited party name and B-number combination, and that the similarly numbered Apogee Engineering decision did not address unstated evaluation criteria, subfactors, or mechanical scoring. Outcome: Warning. GAO identified multiple inaccurate legal citations in Business Integra’s protest, including citations to non-existent or mismatched decisions. The protester attributed the errors to clerical mistakes, but GAO stated that the citations bore the hallmarks of unverified use of a large-language model or other AI tool. GAO denied the protest on the merits and declined to impose sanctions, while warning that future filings containing citations to non-existent authority could lead to sanctions.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Warning in U.S. Government Accountability Office. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Warning
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision as supporting the rule that agencies may not use unstated subfactors to mechanically score proposals. GAO found that no decision existed with the cited party name and B-number combination, and that the similarly numbered Apogee Engineering decision did not address unstated evaluation criteria, subfactors, or mechanical scoring.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision for the proposition that best-value tradeoffs must be meaningfully explained. GAO found no decision with the cited name, B-number, and date; B-419479 was actually PNS Holdings, LLC, which did not discuss best-value documentation requirements.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The protester’s citation appeared to combine or confuse the name and date of Synergy Staffing, Inc. with B-419479. GAO explained that Synergy Staffing, Inc., B-420645.3, Oct. 20, 2022, also did not discuss documentation requirements for best-value tradeoffs.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The protester cited an existing Intercon Associates decision for the proposition that agencies cannot penalize offerors for failing to use the government’s wording or require them to parrot PWS language. GAO found that the decision did not discuss that principle and involved a statement of work rather than a PWS.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision as supporting the rule that agencies may not use unstated subfactors to mechanically score proposals. GAO found that no decision existed with the cited party name and B-number combination, and that the similarly numbered Apogee Engineering decision did not address unstated evaluation criteria, subfactors, or mechanical scoring. Outcome: Warning. GAO identified multiple inaccurate legal citations in Business Integra’s protest, including citations to non-existent or mismatched decisions. The protester attributed the errors to clerical mistakes, but GAO stated that the citations bore the hallmarks of unverified use of a large-language model or other AI tool. GAO denied the protest on the merits and declined to impose sanctions, while warning that future filings containing citations to non-existent authority could lead to sanctions.
- Why does Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Warning in U.S. Government Accountability Office. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.