AtechGov, LLC (1333BJ25R00280006)

B-424047,B-424047.2 Feb 06, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AtechGov, LLC (Atech), a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to Blackwatch International Corporation, a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333BJ25R00280006, issued by the Department of Commerce, United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or USPTO) for end user support operations support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the resulting source selection 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: AtechGov, LLC File: B-424047; B-424047.2 Date: February 6, 2026 W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Taylor R. Holt, Esq., and Hunter M. Drake, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., John M. McAdams III, Esq., Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., and Ben R. Smith, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Blackwatch International Corporation, the intervenor. Robert G. Palmer, Esq., and Joe D. Baker II, Esq., Department of Commerce, 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 Protest challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal under the technical approach and management approach factors, including allegations that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION AtechGov, LLC (Atech), a small business0F[1] of Bethesda, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to Blackwatch International Corporation, a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333BJ25R00280006, issued by the Department of Commerce, United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or USPTO) for end user support operations support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 18, 2024, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, pursuant to the commercial items procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, directly to four firms identified during market research as being “most likely to successfully meet the agency's needs.” COS at 5; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 2, 14; AR, Exh. 2, RFP amend. 1 at 2.1F[2] The PTO issued the solicitation under its unique alternative competition method procurement authority, which is authorized by The Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act, 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(4)(A), and implemented through section 6.1.1 of the PTO Acquisition Guidelines (PTAG), 78 Fed. Reg. 61185, 61186-61187 (Oct. 3, 2013). RFP at 2. The solicitation sought proposals for end user support operations services, in support of the PTO's enterprise infrastructure product line. RFP amend. 1 at 2. The solicitation explained that the PTO has four product lines: a patent product line, a trademark product line, an enterprise business product line, and the enterprise infrastructure product line. Id. at 17. The RFP stated that the enterprise infrastructure product line “encompasses products and product components that focus on delivering value to internal users” and includes end-user equipment like laptops and monitors, as well as “network, platform, security and disaster recovery, cloud, and [information technology (IT)] innovations.” Id. Broadly, the solicitation sought “support to continue maintaining the operation of legacy systems and provide new solutions and processes to increase efficiencies and reliability of USPTO IT systems.” Id. More specifically, the solicitation stated its objective to “acquire USPTO Agile teams that are cross-functional” to maintain and operate these systems, advised that it would “utilize Agile processes . . . to empower daily work,” and stated that the agency would measure the value of the contractor's performance “through Agile methodologies.” Id. at 19, 29. The solicitation contemplated the award of a hybrid labor-hour and firm-fixed-price contract with a 12-month base period of performance, four 12-month option periods, and an optional 6-month extension. Id. at 2. The RFP provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering four factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical approach, management approach, past performance, and price. Id. at 8-9. The RFP advised that the “non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.” Id.