Regency Technologies (IFB-33-4012)

B-423992,B-423992.2 Feb 09, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Regency Partners, LLC, doing business as d/b/a Regency Technologies, of Stow, Ohio, protests the award of a sales contract to Gem Southwest LLC, d/b/a Gem Lifecycle Solutions, of Dallas, Texas, under solicitation No. 33-4012, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Disposition Services, for the sale of electronic scrap property. Regency argues that the agency should have found the awardee's technical proposal to be unacceptable for failing to adequately address or comply with various solicitation requirements. Regency also contends that the awardee's proposal was ineligible for award because two of the proposed key compliance personnel become unavailable. 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: Regency Technologies File: B-423992; B-423992.2 Date: February 9, 2026 Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and Issac D. Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. H. Todd Whay, Esq., and Ian Cronogue, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for Gem Southwest LLC, d/b/a Gem Lifecycle Solutions, the intervenor. Kristin M. Carlesso, Esq., and Robin E. Walters, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency should have found the awardee technically unacceptable in various respects is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the awardee's proposal was ineligible for award due to key personnel unavailability is denied where the record does not show that the awardee had actual knowledge that the proposed personnel had become unavailable. DECISION Regency Partners, LLC, doing business as d/b/a Regency Technologies, of Stow, Ohio, protests the award of a sales contract to Gem Southwest LLC, d/b/a Gem Lifecycle Solutions, of Dallas, Texas, under solicitation No. 33-4012, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Disposition Services, for the sale of electronic scrap property. Regency argues that the agency should have found the awardee's technical proposal to be unacceptable for failing to adequately address or comply with various solicitation requirements. Regency also contends that the awardee's proposal was ineligible for award because two of the proposed key compliance personnel become unavailable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2024, DLA issued a request for technical proposals (RFTP) as the first step in a two-step solicitation process, seeking a purchaser to acquire its electronic scrap property, perform required demilitarization (DEMIL) and mutilation processes for that scrap property, and remove and transport the electronic scrap. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFTP at 4, 8; Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5.[1] In the second step of the solicitation process, on March 26, 2025, the agency issued an invitation for bids (IFB) to those offerors[2] that submitted technically acceptable proposals in response to the RFTP. RFTP at 1; see AR, Tab 11, IFB; AR, Tab 12, Gem and Regency Bid Invite. The solicitation contemplated the award of a firm-fixed-price sales contract for a 60‑month base period of performance, with the scrap property to be sold by the agency on a per‑pound basis. RFTP at 4; IFB at 20. The IFB specified three different property streams, or types of electronic scrap property: DEMIL-required property, mutilation-required property, and electronic scrap.[3] IFB at 7. The IFB guaranteed that the agency would issue the purchaser “a minimum of 60,000,000 [pounds] of property” within the 60‑month base period and a maximum of 320,000,000 pounds, with potential quantity options. Id. at 20-21, 30. In the first step of the solicitation process, offerors were directed to submit technical proposals, which would be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. The agency would evaluate proposals based on two considerations: (1) the degree to which the firm's claims of performance capacity are supported and, (2) the ability of the firm to perform in accordance with the requirements of the draft invitation for bid. RFTP at 5. The RFTP required each firm to pay attention to three factors[4] in preparing a technical proposal, and to provide “sufficient detail in the proposal to demonstrate its complete understanding of the scope of the work involved.” Id. The RFTP required offerors' technical proposals to include a title page, an executive summary highlighting their approach, and an operational plan. Id.