CSlope Solutions, LLC--Reconsideration

B-422249.5 Apr 08, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CSlope Solutions, LLC, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in CSlope Sols., LLC, B-422249.2 et al., Dec. 10, 2025, in which we denied its protest of the issuance of a task order to JCS Solutions, LLC, 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 customer care support center. We denied CSlope's allegation that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals resulting in a flawed source selection decision. The requester argues that our decision contains errors of fact and law that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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--Reconsideration File: B-422249.5 Date: April 8, 2026 Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requester has not shown that our prior decision contains an error of fact or law warranting reversal or modification. DECISION CSlope Solutions, LLC, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in CSlope Sols., LLC, B‑422249.2 et al., Dec. 10, 2025, in which we denied its protest of the issuance of a task order to JCS Solutions, LLC, 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 customer care support center. We denied CSlope's allegation that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals resulting in a flawed source selection decision. The requester argues that our decision contains errors of fact and law that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2023, the Army issued the solicitation under the General Services Administration's 8(a)[1] Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resource for Services III governmentwide acquisition contract, using the procedures of FAR section 16.505. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5-6. The initial due date for proposals was December 13, 2023. Id. at 7. As explained in our underlying protest decision,[2] shortly before the due date for the submission of proposals, JCS filed a protest with our Office, challenging the terms of the solicitation. CSlope Sols., LLC, supra at 2. In response to the protest, the agency took partial corrective action by amending the RFP to remove any reference to a best-value tradeoff source selection process and to specify that only proposals that received a past performance rating of substantial confidence would be eligible for award. Id. Following this announced plan, the only remaining protest ground for resolution by our Office was an allegation that the RFP improperly provided for a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, in violation of the FAR and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. That protest ground was subsequently denied. See JCS Sols., LLC, B-422249, Mar. 13, 2024.[3] The amended solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals based on three factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price evaluation. CSlope Sols., LLC, supra at 2 (citing Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, RFP at 4). The solicitation instructed that the agency would “make an award to the responsible [o]fferor (in accordance with FAR 9.1) whose proposal complies with the RFP requirements and is determined to be the lowest total evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined to be [t]echnically [a]cceptable with a past performance rating of [s]ubstantial [c]onfidence.” RFP at 49. The RFP evaluation scheme anticipated a three-step process. Id. at 50. In step one, the agency was to evaluate the five lowest-priced proposals under the technical factor on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. In step two, the Army was to conduct a past performance evaluation and a price analysis for the three lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals. Id.