Tech Systems, Inc. (M0026324R0002)

B-423547,B-423547.2,B-423547.3 Aug 08, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI), of Apex, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to TDNA Technologies, Inc. d/b/a/ Hartwood Consulting Group (Hartwood), of Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M0026324R0002, issued by the United States Marine Corps, for uniform alteration services. TSI challenges the agency's evaluation of TSI's technical proposal, the evaluation of Hartwood's proposal under the past performance factor, the agency's exchanges with Hartwood, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Tech Systems, Inc. File: B-423547; B-423547.2; B-423547.3 Date: August 8, 2025 Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, for the protester. James E. Landis, Esq., and Morris D. Hale, Esq., United States Marine Corps, 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 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals under the non‑price factors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and to the extent an error occurred, the protester has not demonstrated competitive prejudice. 2. Protest contending that the exchanges conducted with the awardee constituted improper discussions is denied where the agency’s exchanges were clarifications, rather than discussions. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision to select a lower-rated proposal at a lower price is denied where the record shows that the agency’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI), of Apex, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to TDNA Technologies, Inc. d/b/a/ Hartwood Consulting Group (Hartwood), of Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M0026324R0002, issued by the United States Marine Corps, for uniform alteration services. TSI challenges the agency’s evaluation of TSI’s technical proposal, the evaluation of Hartwood’s proposal under the past performance factor, the agency’s exchanges with Hartwood, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2024, the agency issued the RFP, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, for uniform tailoring services for all Marine Corps recruits and drill instructor candidates in training stationed at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 5, RFP at 1; AR, Exh. 8, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1; AR, Exh. 7, RFP § M at 1.[1],[2] The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery requirements contract with a 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods, and a 6-month option to extend services. See RFP at 3-26. TSI is providing these services as the incumbent contractor. See Protest at 3; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 8-9. The RFP established award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff using the following three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, past performance, and price. RFP § M at 1-2. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price, and price would become more important where proposals received similar ratings under the non-price factors. Id. at 2. The RFP stated that the agency reserved the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions. Id. at 1. For the technical capability factor, offerors were required to submit a technical proposal, contingency plan, quality control plan, management and staffing plan, and equipment plan. AR, Exh. 6, RFP § L at 5-6. As relevant here, for the equipment plan, the RFP instructed offerors to submit a plan demonstrating the offeror’s available resources to perform the tasks within the PWS. Id. at 6. The RFP stated: “At a minimum, the equipment plan shall furnish a listing of Offeror’s proposed equipment by make, model, and year. The list shall be divided into the following categories: 1) Equipment on hand, and 2) Equipment pending acquisition.” Id. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate how well the offeror’s equipment plan demonstrated the resources and ability to perform the requirements in accordance with the delivery schedule in the PWS. RFP § M at 3. In evaluating proposals under the technical capability factor, the RFP stated that the agency would assign proposals one of the following combined technical/risk adjectival ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 3, 5. For the past performance factor, the RFP provided that offerors were to submit no more than three recent past performance references. RFP § L at 6.