DCS Corporation (FA2318-25-Q-B001)

B-423482.2 Sep 12, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DCS Corporation, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests its non-selection for award of an order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA2318-25-Q-B001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for global mobility and special mission planning systems. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated its quotation and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: DCS Corporation File: B-423482.2 Date: September 12, 2025 Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Esq., and Allison P. Klena, Esq., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., for the protester. Clayton S. Marsh, Esq., for MORSECORP Inc.; Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, and Jade C. Totman, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., for the Boeing Company; and Robert J. Symon, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Eugene Benick, Esq., and Owen E. Salyers, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, for Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., the intervenors. Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Colonel Nina R. Padalino, and Catherine J. McSwain, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the evaluation of the protester's quotation is denied where the record demonstrates the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION DCS Corporation, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests its non-selection for award of an order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA2318-25-Q-B001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for global mobility and special mission planning systems.[1] The protester contends that the agency misevaluated its quotation and conducted a flawed best‑value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 22, 2024, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules) to firms holding the General Services Administration's multiple-award federal supply schedule (FSS) contract for engineering services (541330ENG). Agency Report (AR), Tab 46, Instructions for Quotation Preparation (IFPQ) at 5.[2] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of up to three orders, with a 6-month base period of performance, and four 1‑year option periods. AR, Tab 6, RFQ at 2. The Air Force sought agile software development and sustainment services, systems engineering services, and continuous integration/continuous delivery services. AR, Tab 12, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 7. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two factors: (1) technical; and (2) price. AR, Tab 42, Evaluation Criteria at 5. The technical factor had four subfactors: (a) data exchange; (b) innovation implementation; (c) mission planning modernization; and (4) air drop mission planning. Id. The Air Force would assign a technical approach adjectival rating, and a technical risk adjectival rating, for each of the subfactors.[3] Id. at 7-9. Price would be evaluated for balance and reasonableness. Id. at 9. The RFQ provided that the technical factor (encompassing all subfactors) was significantly more important than price. Id. at 5. The solicitation further explained that data exchange was the most important subfactor, innovation implementation was the second most important, and mission planning modernization and air drop mission planning were of equal importance, but less important than the other two subfactors. Id. The agency received multiple quotations by the November 20 due date, to include submissions by DCS, MORSECORP, Boeing, and Jacobs. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 12. On or about April 11, 2025, the agency subsequently issued task orders to MORSECORP, Boeing, and Jacobs, but not DCS. Id. at 15. On April 21, DCS filed a protest with our Office, challenging the agency's evaluation of the firm's quotations and the Air Force's best-value decision. On April 29, we dismissed DCS's protest as academic, based on the agency's stated intention to undertake corrective action; the Air Force explained it would reevaluate the protester's quotation under the data exchange, innovation implementation, and mission planning modernization subfactors of the technical factor, and make a new award decision after completing the reevaluation. DCS Corporation, B-423482.2, Apr.