H2 Technology Group, LLC (36C10B25Q0030)

B-423777,B-423777.2 Dec 15, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights H2 Technology Group, LLC (H2TG), a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to ThunderYard Liberty JV, LLC, a small business of Westlake, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B25Q0030, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Office of Information & Technology, for a comprehensive range of services in support of the VA's data and analytics integrated modernization and operations (DAIMO) program. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated H2TG's technical quotation, resulting in a flawed 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. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: H2 Technology Group, LLC File: B-423777; B-423777.2 Date: December 15, 2025 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Robert C. Starling, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., Cash W. Carter, Esq., and Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for ThunderYard Liberty, JV, LLC, the intervenor. Tia Dinh, Esq., and Tara Nash, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's challenges to the technical evaluation of quotations are denied where the record of the agency's evaluation reflects reasonable judgments and conclusions. DECISION H2 Technology Group, LLC (H2TG), a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to ThunderYard Liberty JV, LLC, a small business of Westlake, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B25Q0030, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Office of Information & Technology, for a comprehensive range of services in support of the VA's data and analytics integrated modernization and operations (DAIMO) program. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated H2TG's technical quotation, resulting in a flawed tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside to vendors holding General Services Administration's (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Information Technical Professional Service (GSA MAS 54151S) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ at 227.[1] The solicitation was issued to consolidate the development, enhancement, modernization, and daily operational sustainment of products and programs executed by the VA's Office of Information and Technology. Id. at 89; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. In this regard, the RFQ requested quotations for a comprehensive range of information technology services, including “production and non-production support and provisioning, [o]perations and [m]aintenance [] for all product environments, project/product management, solution development, coordination with partners, software integration, testing, release management, technical support, training, content management, systems engineering, development, enhancements, modernization, and documentation.” RFQ at 101. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single task order with fixed-price, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursement line items. Id. The solicitation included a 12-month base period of performance with four 12-month optional periods and 16 “optional tasks” covering various areas of additional support. Id.; COS at 1. As specified in the RFQ, the agency intended to issue the task order to the “best overall (i.e., best value)” quotation using five evaluation factors: (1) case study submission; (2) written technical solution; (3) in-person technical demonstration; (4) veterans involvement; and (5) price/cost. RFQ at 236. The evaluation was to proceed in a two‑step evaluation process. Id. Step 1 consisted of the evaluation of quotations under the case study submission factor. Id. The evaluation under this factor, however, would “not [be] part of the best value tradeoff analysis[.]” Id. The higher-rated vendors under the case study factor would proceed to step 2, where the agency would evaluate quotations under all of the remaining factors on a best-value tradeoff basis. Id. The RFQ stated that the in-person technical demonstration factor would be more important than the written technical solution factor, which, in turn, would be significantly more important than the veterans involvement and price/cost factors, which are equally-weighted. Id. The non-price/cost factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than the price/cost factor.