CSlope Solutions, LLC (W519TC-23-R-0111)

B-422249.2,B-422249.3,B-422249.4 Dec 10, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CSlope Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to JCS Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0111, issued by the Department of the Army, for services in support of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) customer care support center. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: CSlope Solutions, LLC File: B-422249.2; B-422249.3; B-422249.4 Date: December 10, 2025 Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Laurel Hockey, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for the intervenor, JCS Solutions, LLC. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Alex M. Cahill, Esq., Department of the Army; and Tanner M. Hatch, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CSlope Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to JCS Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC‑23‑R-0111, issued by the Department of the Army, for services in support of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) customer care support center. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2023, the Army issued the solicitation under the General Services Administration's (GSA's) 8(a) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resource for Services III governmentwide acquisition contract.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5‑6. The solicitation, which was issued in accordance with FAR section 16.505, contemplates the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period (including a 30-day transition period) and four, 1-year option periods. Id. at 6. The initial due date for proposals was December 13, 2023. Id. at 7. JCS's Protest of the Solicitation Terms Prior to the due date for proposals, JCS filed a protest with our Office, challenging the terms of the solicitation. Id. Specifically, as relevant here, JCS argued that (1) the solicitation was unclear where it provided for the issuance of the task order on a best‑value tradeoff basis and a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, and (2) use of an LPTA source selection process violated the FAR and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). Id. During the pendency of the protest, the agency informed our Office that it intended to take partial corrective action. Id. Specifically, the Army stated that it would amend the solicitation to remove any reference to a best-value tradeoff source selection process, as well as revise the solicitation to specify that only those proposals that received a rating of substantial confidence for past performance would be eligible for award. Id. Accordingly, the only remaining protest ground for our Office to resolve was the protester's argument that the solicitation improperly provided for an LPTA source selection process in violation of the FAR and DFARS. Our Office denied the remaining protest ground. See JCS Sols., LLC., B‑422249.1, Mar. 13, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 71. We concluded that the source selection process did not qualify as an LPTA because the solicitation provided for a comparative assessment of past performance. Id. at 5 (explaining that the solicitation provided for the evaluation of past performance on a scale, which included possible ratings of no confidence, limited confidence, neutral confidence, satisfactory confidence, or substantial confidence). The Amended Solicitation, Initial Task Order Award, and Subsequent Protest The amended solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals based on the following evaluation criteria: technical, past performance, and cost/price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, RFP at 4. The technical factor consisted of the following subfactors: management and staffing plan, and staffing/labor mix. Id. at 50‑51.