TFC Consulting, Inc. (70T01025Q6400N001)

B-423996 Feb 06, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TFC Consulting, Inc., a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Centennial Technologies, Inc., a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T01025Q6400N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for financial statement audit liaison and internal control support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision, which concluded that Centennial's quotation represented a more advantageous technical solution at a lower price. 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: TFC Consulting, Inc. File: B-423996 Date: February 6, 2026 Victor A. Kubli, Esq., Law Office of Victor A. Kubli, P.C., for the protester. Matthew R. Keller, Esq., Praemia Law, PLLC, for Centennial Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher J. Curry, Esq., and Michael D. Kiffney, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's technical quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's past performance is denied where the agency reasonably selected for evaluation a sample of recent and relevant efforts performed by the protester from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System. 3. Protest challenging agency's best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency's decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION TFC Consulting, Inc., a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Centennial Technologies, Inc., a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T01025Q6400N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for financial statement audit liaison and internal control support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and best‑value tradeoff decision, which concluded that Centennial's quotation represented a more advantageous technical solution at a lower price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 29, 2025, the agency issued the RFQ as a set‑aside for small businesses using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. The RFQ was issued through the eBuy system to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule contracts for auditing services.[1] Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Initial RFQ at 1, 3.  The solicitation sought quotations to provide financial statement audit liaison and internal control support, encompassing “risk management, audit oversight, and internal control support services for both business processes and information technology.” RFQ at 153‑154.[2] The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 101‑103. The RFQ provided that quotations would be evaluated in two phases. Id. at 146‑149. The first phase would be an advisory “down-select” based on written responses submitted for technical scenario 1. Id. at 149-150. Under this first phase, the agency would assess a confidence rating to each vendor's quotation based on any benefits or risks identified in the vendor's response to technical scenario 1. Id. at 147. After the phase I evaluations, the agency would provide each vendor with an advisory notice that either invited the vendor to participate in phase II or advised the vendor that it was unlikely to be a viable competitor. Id. Any vendor that submitted a phase I quotation, regardless of the advisory notice, would be eligible to submit phase II quotations in accordance with the solicitation. Id. In phase II, the agency would evaluate quotations under the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical scenarios; (2) draft project management plan; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 149. The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering all phase II factors. Id. Vendors were advised that the non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price, but the importance of price would increase as ratings for the non‑price factors became more equal. Id.