Life Together Coaching, LLC (W911RZ25QA038)

B-423989,B-423989.2,B-423989.3 Jan 28, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Life Together Coaching, LLC, a small business of Temple, Texas, protests the award of a contract to CenterPoint Strategic Business Services, LLC, a small business of Brunswick, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911RZ25QA038, issued by the Department of the Army for leadership training and coaching services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable and that the agency treated vendors unequally. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Life Together Coaching, LLC File: B-423989; B-423989.2; B-423989.3 Date: January 28, 2026 Jim Crothers for the protester. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Major Bruce A. Nessler, Robert B. Neill, Esq., and Lieutenant Colonel Cali Y. Kim, Department of the Army, for the agency. Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of quotations is denied where the agency evaluated quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, and the protester was not competitively prejudiced by any alleged disparate treatment between vendors. DECISION Life Together Coaching, LLC, a small business of Temple, Texas, protests the award of a contract to CenterPoint Strategic Business Services, LLC, a small business of Brunswick, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911RZ25QA038, issued by the Department of the Army for leadership training and coaching services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable and that the agency treated vendors unequally. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside on September 8, 2025, using the simplified acquisition procedures for commercial products and services set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 2, 33.[1] The agency sought the provision of group leadership training course sessions and individual coaching sessions for civilian employees at Fort Carson, Coloardo. RFQ at 5. The Army contemplated the award of a fixed-priced contract for one 6-month period. Id. at 1, 20. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering the following factors: technical acceptability, schedule adherence, and price. Id. at 33. After evaluating quotations, the Army found CenterPoint to have the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision at 3. The agency made award to CenterPoint on September 23 for $31,350. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The agency notified the protester of the award decision on September 30, 2025. AR, Tab 15, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. Life Together filed a timely protest with our Office on November 13.[2] DISCUSSION The protester alleges that no other vendor, including the awardee, can meet the technical requirements of the solicitation and that the agency treated the awardee and protester unequally.[3] Protest at 2-3; 2nd Supp. Protest at 7-8. The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated quotations and did not treat vendors unequally. MOL at 19‑21. We have reviewed all allegations and find no basis to sustain the protest.[4] Interested Party As a preliminary matter, we address whether Life Together is an interested party to protest. Prior to the agency report due date, the agency filed a request for dismissal, contending that the protester was not an interested party to challenge the technical evaluation of the awardee's quotation because award was made on an LPTA basis, and there were two intervening quotations that the protester did not challenge. Req. for Dismissal at 3. Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement. Our regulations implementing CICA define an interested party as an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). Determining whether a protester is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit of relief sought by the protester, and the protester's status in relation to the procurement. Criterion Sys., Inc., B-419749 et al., July 21, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 261 at 5. A protester is not an interested party if it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained.