A6 Scientific Corporation (2031ZA26R00002)

B-424138 Mar 11, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A6 Scientific Corporation, of Houston, Texas, a small business, protests the award of a contract to RIO Technical Services, LLC, of Fort Worth, Texas, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2031ZA26R00002, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), for commercial visitor center services at the agency's Western Currency Facility (WCF), in Fort Worth, Texas. A6 argues that the BEP conducted discussions that were misleading and not meaningful. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: A6 Scientific Corporation File: B-424138 Date: March 11, 2026 Zhiyuan He for the protester. Rachel McGuane, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency engaged in discussions that were misleading and not meaningful is denied where, although the agency's discussions failed to identify or discuss two evaluated defects in the protester's oral presentation, the protester has not shown that these defects could have been addressed in the protester's subsequent written proposal revision, and therefore the protester was not competitively prejudiced. DECISION A6 Scientific Corporation, of Houston, Texas, a small business, protests the award of a contract to RIO Technical Services, LLC, of Fort Worth, Texas, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2031ZA26R00002, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), for commercial visitor center services at the agency's Western Currency Facility (WCF), in Fort Worth, Texas. A6 argues that the BEP conducted discussions that were misleading and not meaningful. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 23, 2025, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and subpart 13.5, sought proposals from small businesses to oversee and operate the BEP WCF tour and visitor center (TVC), which provides free tours to the public. The required work, described in a performance work statement (PWS), included management of the information desk, providing public tours and transportation services, staffing a retail sales store, and operating the center's exhibits, displays, and film theater, for a base year and two option years under a time-and-materials contract.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1, 4-7. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government considering four evaluation factors: (1) technical approach; (2) management and staffing plan; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 46. The technical approach factor included two subfactors, which were of equal importance: customer service and oral presentation. Id. The technical approach factor and the management and staffing plan factor were of equal importance and were significantly more important than past performance and price. Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3. Only the oral presentation subfactor is at issue here. The RFP set forth a two-phased evaluation approach. Under phase one, the agency would receive written proposals addressing the RFP's evaluation factors and the objectives and requirements set forth in the PWS. RFP at 41. The agency would evaluate the written proposals and determine which offerors were considered highly rated based on their initial submissions. Id. Under the technical approach factor and its subfactors, and under the management and staffing plan factor, the proposals would be evaluated as high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence. Id. at 48. Under the past performance factor, the evaluation would assess the relevance and quality of past performance and assign a level of confidence rating. Id. at 49. Price would be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and completeness. Id. Offerors whose proposals were among the highly rated would be notified and invited to participate in phase two of the evaluation. Id. at 41. Phase two was comprised of an oral presentation where each offeror would be presented with a list of questions whose oral responses would be evaluated. Id. Under this subfactor, the agency would assess the offeror's demonstrated understanding of PWS tasks and objectives and the TVC mission; responsiveness to questions; and ability to articulate management and quality control methods. Id. at 47. To be eligible for award, an offeror had to receive a rating of at least “[s]ome [c]onfidence” under all of the technical factors and subfactors, and no less than “[s]atisfactory confidence” under the past performance factor (or “[u]nknown” if there was no relevant past performance). Id. at 46. BEP received five proposals and rejected two as late. The agency evaluated the remaining proposals, from A6, RIO, and a third firm.