Technology Information Systems, LLC (RFQ 1758314)

B-424087,B-424088 Jan 26, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technology Information Systems, LLC (TekInfoSys), a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of contracts to Adtech, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, and Vanguard Management Solutions, Inc. (VMS), a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, respectively, under request for quotations (RFQ) Nos. 1758361 and 1758314, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency evaluated the protester's quotation unreasonably and on the basis of unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protests. View Decision Matter of: Technology Information Systems, LLC File: B-424087; B-424088 Date: January 26, 2026 Richard L Porterfield for the protester. Shelley Brown, Esq., Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the protester's quotation are denied where the challenged evaluation findings were logically encompassed by the stated criteria. DECISION Technology Information Systems, LLC (TekInfoSys), a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of contracts to Adtech, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, and Vanguard Management Solutions, Inc. (VMS), a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, respectively, under request for quotations (RFQ) Nos. 1758361 and 1758314, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) for information technology (IT) support services.[1] The protester contends that the agency evaluated the protester's quotation unreasonably and on the basis of unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On August 12, 2025, the agency issued both of the RFQs at issue for IT-related services to vendors holding Federal Supply Schedule contracts pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, Initial RFQ Section A at 1; exh. 3, RFQ at 13; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The RFQs, which were amended once respectively, contemplated the issuance of single award fixed-price contracts with 1-year base periods and four 1-year option periods. AR, exh. 3, RFQ at 1. Each RFQ provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and two non-price evaluation factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: proposed contractor personnel resume (resume); and past performance. Id. at 13. All non-price factors when combined were significantly more important than price. Id. Only the resume factor is relevant to the issues presented in this protest. For the resume factor, the RFQs instructed vendors to submit the resumes of all individuals proposed to provide the services requested within the RFQs. AR, exh. 3, RFQ at 11. As part of its evaluation, the agency provided that it would evaluate resumes “of key personnel to ensure they meet the qualifications in [the statement of work (SOW)].” Id. at 13. As relevant to this protest, the SOW of both RFQs required vendors to be proficient with two technologies: Azure Active Directory; and Microsoft Intune for Mobile Device Management. For example, under RFQ 1758361, section 4.2 of the SOW, labelled “Azure Active Directory and Intune Management,” the RFQ required vendors to “[p]ossess prior knowledge and experience administering in a hybrid Azure Active Directory environment . . .” and to “[s]upport user and device management using Microsoft Intune for Mobile Device Management. . . .” Id. at 3. Similarly, under RFQ 1758314, section 4.1 of the SOW, labelled “Hybrid Azure Active Directory Administration,” required vendors to “[a]dminister and maintain Hybrid Azure AD infrastructure . . .” and section 4.2 labelled “Microsoft Intune/MDM Support” required vendors be able to “[c]onfigure and manage Microsoft Intune for mobile device management and application management.” AR (B-424088), exh. 3, RFQ at 3. The protester and awardees submitted timely quotations by the RFQs' due date of August 14, 2025. See, AR, exh. 8, TekInfoSys Scoring Sheet at 1; AR, exh. 9, AdTech Scoring Sheet at 1. For the resume factor, evaluators assigned a rating between 1 and 10 based on the vendor's proposed personnel's capability to perform under the RFQ. AR, exh. 9, AdTech Scoring Sheet at 1. To create each quotation's total score, the agency summed each quotation's resume and total price scores.[2] Id.