Coastal Management Solutions, Inc.

B-423344.3 Feb 24, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Coastal Management Solutions, Inc. (Coastal), a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Strategic Data Systems, Inc. (SDS), a small business of Keller, Texas, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0018924R3088, to provide support services for the MyNavy Career Center (MNCC). The protester challenges various aspects of the Navy's evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff 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: Coastal Management Solutions, Inc. File: B-423344.3 Date: February 24, 2026 Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., Williams Mullen, PC, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Strategic Data Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Eric Lofquist, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation and the best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Coastal Management Solutions, Inc. (Coastal), a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Strategic Data Systems, Inc. (SDS), a small business of Keller, Texas, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0018924R3088, to provide support services for the MyNavy Career Center (MNCC). The protester challenges various aspects of the Navy's evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff decision.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy is modernizing its MyNavyHR enterprise, which the agency uses for staffing the fleet and ensuring sailors are prepared for their positions. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 24, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.[2] The agency views the MNCC as a central component of the modernization effort. Id. at 2. The MNCC is “a shared-services organization that enables the consolidation of administrative and transactional processes from across MyNavyHR and the [career and life event] Hire-to-Retire process.” Id. The MNCC uses a tiered services model and includes a self-service portal, human resource service centers, and transactional service centers. Id. In this procurement, the Navy sought a contractor to provide tier one MNCC support, which the PWS described as “provid[ing] Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) as agent-assisted points of contact continuously available 24 hours a day to onboard initial entry members into the MyNavyHR environment, process pay and personnel transactions for members, and provide status updates, answer questions, and respond to member inquiries across all [career and life events].”[3] Id. On July 15, 2024, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16, the Navy issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside to holders of the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.[4] AR, Exh. 8, RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. RFQ at 3, 9. The RFQ provided for a two-step source selection process. AR, Exh. 7, RFQ amend. 2 at 3. In step one, vendors would submit a description of the firm's approach to accomplishing four requirements. Id. The agency would evaluate the submissions, determine which firms were the most viable competitors, and notify the nonviable firms that they were eliminated from further consideration. Id. In step two, the firms deemed viable were invited to submit quotations. RFQ at 25; COS/MOL at 6. Among the firms invited to submit quotations, award would be made to the responsible vendor with the quotation that represented the best value, considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) performance approach; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. RFQ at 32. The non-cost/price factors were significantly more important than cost/price.