Highlight Technologies, Inc.

B-424060.2 May 22, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Highlight Technologies, Inc., a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a call order to FedTec, LLC, a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47HAA025Q0048, issued by the United States General Services Administration (GSA), Office of the Chief Information Officer, for enterprise data analytics shared services (DASS) operations and maintenance (O&M) support. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection decision and contends that the awardee violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). 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: Highlight Technologies, Inc. File: B-424060.2 Date: May 22, 2026 C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Cash W. Carter, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester. Taylor R. Holt, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for FedTec, LLC, the intervenor. Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency's post-corrective action technical evaluation is dismissed as untimely where the protester failed to timely challenge similar evaluation findings following the original award. 2. Protest alleging that agency misled protester into submitting a higher‑priced quotation is denied where all offerors were provided the same information and were permitted to structure their quotations to best address the solicitation requirements based on their own business judgements. 3. Protest challenging agency's best‑value tradeoff and source selection decision is denied where the agency's tradeoff decision was reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 4. Protest that awardee violated the Procurement Integrity Act is dismissed as legally and factually insufficient where the protester's allegations, even if unrebutted, fail to establish a violation of law by the agency. DECISION Highlight Technologies, Inc., a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a call order to FedTec, LLC, a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47HAA025Q0048, issued by the United States General Services Administration (GSA), Office of the Chief Information Officer, for enterprise data analytics shared services (DASS) operations and maintenance (O&M) support. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection decision and contends that the awardee violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2025, the agency issued the solicitation to all holders of GSA's Corporate Information Technology Service blanket purchase agreement (BPA). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFQ at 1.[1] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a call order with fixed‑price and labor-hour contract line items (CLINS) to provide professional support services for GSA's enterprise DASS portfolio for a 12‑month base period, four 12‑month option periods, and a 6‑month option to extend services.[2] RFQ at 4, 8, 19; PWS at 3. The agency was to issue the call order on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following non‑price factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability; (2) staffing; and (3) past performance.[3] RFQ at 8‑9. The RFQ specified that the non‑price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 16. However, the solicitation stated that as quotations became “more equal in terms of technical/non‑price evaluation factors, price will become a more important factor.” Id. The solicitation provided that the agency would calculate the total evaluated price by adding the quotation prices for the 12‑month base period, the four 12‑month option periods, and the optional 6‑month extension period. RFQ at 15. As relevant to this decision, the RFQ instructed vendors to prepare their price quotations using a price schedule attached to the solicitation that was to include “pricing for each task identified in the [PWS]” for the base year and all option periods. Id. at 7‑8. The price schedule included space for vendors to list their proffered labor categories, hours, and labor rates to accomplish the PWS's defined O&M tasks. AR, Exh. 6, RFQ attach. D, Price Schedule.