Strategic Resources, Inc. (W15QKN-25-R-0001)

B-423597.2,B-423597.3 Jan 14, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to 360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC (Patriot), of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-25-R-0001, for military funeral honors and survivor outreach services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the price and technical factors, the agency's responsibility determination, 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: Strategic Resources, Inc. File: B-423597.2; B-423597.3 Date: January 14, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Abigail H. Finan, Esq., and Kristine E. Crallé, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for 360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC, the intervenor. Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 various aspects of the agency's evaluation under the non-price and price factors, and the agency's best-value tradeoff decision, is denied where the evaluation and decision were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the agency's affirmative responsibility determination is denied where the record does not show that the contracting officer ignored relevant information in making the determination. DECISION Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to 360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC (Patriot), of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN‑25-R‑0001, for military funeral honors and survivor outreach services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the price and technical factors, the agency's responsibility determination, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2025, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the Army issued the RFP to eligible holders of the agency's Human Resources Solutions Personnel Lifecycle Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5-6; see also Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, RFP Letter.[1] The RFP sought a contractor to provide the Army National Guard with military funeral honors and survivor outreach services. AR, Tab 49, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with cost-reimbursable line items for travel and other direct costs, and a 12-month base period and three 12-month option periods. Id. at 1, 6. The solicitation provided that the agency would make award on the basis of a best-value tradeoff, using two factors--technical and cost/price--with the technical factor being significantly more important. AR, Tab 43, RFP attach. 5, Task Order Evaluation Plan (TOEP) at 1. The technical factor consisted of four areas: technical approach, staffing approach, management process, and transition plan. Id. at 5-7. In evaluating proposals under the technical factor, the agency would assign each proposal one of the following technical/risk ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.[2] Id. at 12. As relevant here, for the staffing approach area of the technical factor, offerors were required to provide a detailed explanation of their proposed staffing methodology. TOEP at 5. The TOEP stated that labor categories should correlate back to those identified in the base IDIQ contract, with deviations permitted as provided in the IDIQ contract. Id. For the cost/price factor, the TOEP stated that a total evaluated price would be calculated and evaluated for reasonableness. TOEP at 14. Offerors were required to identify labor categories covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and provide a breakout by cost element to demonstrate compliance.[3] Id. at 9. The TOEP stated: “For labor categories that are subject to the SCLS, the element of cost breakout for the [fixed-price] fully loaded labor rates will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the current wage determination or collective bargaining agreement requirements.” Id.