The protester challenged the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, arguing that the agency effectively ignored the technical advantages of its higher-rated quotation and relied almost entirely on price. GAO denied, finding that the agency reasonably documented the tradeoff and concluded that the technical benefits of the protester’s “outstanding” quotation did not justify a price premium of approximately 75 percent over the awardee’s lower-rated “good” quotation.

Stondoh LLC, GAO, B-424439

• Background – The Department of Labor issued an FSS request for quotations as a small business set-aside for professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services for the agency’s federal information systems. The agency received 26 quotations and selected the awardee, whose quotation was rated “good” at $550,276, over the protester’s “outstanding” quotation at $979,800.
• Best-Value Tradeoff – The protester argued the tradeoff was inconsistent with both the evaluation record and the solicitation because the source selection authority “effectively minimize[d] or disregard[ed]” the advantages in the protester’s quotation and relied almost entirely on the price difference. GAO disagreed. Under FAR subpart 8.4 procedures, an agency performing a best-value tradeoff must determine whether one quotation’s technical superiority is worth its higher price. Even where technical merit is more important than price, an agency may select a lower-priced, lower-rated quotation if the price premium is not justified. Here, the source selection authority expressly recognized the protester’s nine significant strengths and superior technical approach, but reasonably concluded that the incremental technical benefits did not justify a price nearly 75 percent higher than both the awardee’s price and the independent government cost estimate.
• Abandoned Arguments – The protester also initially alleged that the agency failed to evaluate quotations consistent with the solicitation and failed to provide a meaningful debriefing. GAO deemed these arguments abandoned because the protester did not rebut the agency’s substantive responses in its comments.
• RFO Deviation Note – In a footnote, GAO identified discrepancies involving the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. Although the agency had issued a class deviation adopting the “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” changes to FAR Part 8 before this solicitation was issued, and GSA had issued a mass modification updating its FSS contracts with new clause versions, the solicitation itself still incorporated the older, pre-deviation versions of various FAR clauses and provisions. GAO did not need to resolve these discrepancies to decide the protest but flagged the issue to alert the agency to ensure future solicitations issued under RFO deviations incorporate the updated clause versions.

The protester is represented by LaTonya Hall of Stondoh LLC. The government is represented by Jonathan Heinz, Esq., of the Department of Labor. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., participated in the decision.