A Square Group, LLC (832571223)

B-424052,B-424052.2,B-424052.3 Feb 12, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A Square Group LLC, a small business of Frederick, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to LightGrid, LLC, a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832571223, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for technical and operational support services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Matter of: A Square Group LLC File: B-424052; B-424052.2; B-424052.3 Date: February 12, 2026 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., and Haley M. Sirokman, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Jacob D. Noe, Esq., and Tariq Abdel‑Wakil, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for LightGrid, LLC, the intervenor. Maurice R. Griffithe, Esq., and Anthony J. Balestreri, Jr., Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging the agency unreasonably failed to assign strengths to the protester's proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency disparately evaluated the proposals of the protester and the awardee is denied where the record shows that the differences in the agency's evaluation stemmed from differences in the proposals. 3. Protest challenging the agency's comparative analysis and source selection decision is denied where the agency's best‑value tradeoff and source selection decision were reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION A Square Group LLC, a small business of Frederick, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to LightGrid, LLC, a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832571223, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for technical and operational support services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best‑value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the RFP on June 20, 2025, to firms holding a DISA Systems, Engineering, Technology, and Innovation small business suite indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The RFP, which the agency amended twice, sought proposals for technical and operational support services to maintain the global network infrastructure of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). Id. at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. As explained in the RFP: DeCA operates approximately 236 commissaries, 11 central distribution centers . . . , and 3 regional offices worldwide to provide a premier quality of life benefit to the armed services. To accomplish this mission, DeCA is dependent upon its global infrastructure to support its core mission of selling groceries through its retail point of sale . . . system and services and its other business functions (e.g., debit and credit card transaction authorizations, “just in time” product ordering, shipping, receiving, invoicing and billing). PWS at 1. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single, fixed‑price task order with cost‑reimbursement line items for other direct costs. AR, Tab 1, RFP at 1. The period of performance comprises a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year options. Id. The RFP stated that the agency would make its source selection decision on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering two factors: technical/management approach; and price. Id. at 4‑5. The technical/management approach factor consisted of three subfactors: network and cyber operations staffing and management; cybersecurity compliance and risk management; and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) technical approach and sustainment strategy. Id. The network and cyber operations staffing and management subfactor and the cybersecurity compliance and risk management subfactor were equally important and would be considered in the agency's tradeoff analysis, while the VoIP technical approach and sustainment strategy subfactor would be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Id. The RFP further provided that the technical/management approach factor was more important than price. Id. at 5.