Peridot Solutions, LLC; enGenius Consulting Group, Inc.

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: Peridot Solutions, LLC; enGenius Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-424234; B-424234.2; B-424234.3; B-424234.4; B-424234.5 Date: May 5, 2026 Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq., Randolph Law, PLLC, for Peridot Solutions, LLC; Kyle M. Wise, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for enGenius Consulting Group, Inc., the protesters. Thomas Coulter, Esq., Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, for Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Susan M. Chagrin, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the evaluation of quotations and selection decision are denied where the record shows that both evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protests alleging that the agency engaged in disparate treatment are denied where the record shows that the differences in the evaluations were the result of differences in quotations. DECISION Peridot Solutions, LLC, a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, and enGenius Consulting Group, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protest the issuance of an order to Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC (IFAS), a small business of Washington, D.C., under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 612572077, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for financial management support services. Both protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of technical and price quotations and the selection decision and allege that the evaluation reflects disparate treatment. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ using the procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 and set aside the procurement for small businesses holding General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts under North American Industry Classification Code number 541611, administrative management and general management consulting services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1-2. [1] The RFQ contemplated award of a fixed-price contract with a period of performance consisting of a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and a 6-month optional extension. Id. at 2. The RFQ requires that the contractor work with the government on financial controls, assist with the conduct of program and organizational assessments, provide financial management information and products, and furnish timely, reliable, and comprehensive financial products and information. AR, Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated in two phases. Phase one would assess vendors' facility clearance level and would be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. RFQ at 4-5. Vendors rated as acceptable under phase one would then be evaluated during phase two under the following factors: technical capabilities, management and administration, and price. Id. at 5. The technical capabilities and management and administration factors were of equal importance and would be assigned ratings as follows: outstanding/blue; good/purple; acceptable/green; marginal/yellow; or unacceptable/red. Id. When combined, the non-price factors were identified as being more important than price. Id. at 8. The agency received four quotations, including from Peridot, enGenius, and IFAS. AR, Tab 4, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 2. All three received acceptable ratings under phase one and following evaluation of phase two, the vendors received ratings and had prices as follows: Peridot enGenius IFAS Technical Capabilities Acceptable/Green Acceptable/Green Good/Purple Management and Administration Acceptable/Green Good/Purple Acceptable/Green Price $30,098,603 $46,189,289 $36,496,998 Id. at 4. The contracting officer, who also served as the source selection authority, selected IFAS for award. These protests followed. DISCUSSION Both protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of their quotations under the technical capabilities factor and additionally contend that the agency engaged in disparate treatment when evaluating IFAS under this factor. In addition, both protesters challenge aspects of the price evaluation and argue that the best-value tradeoff was unreasonable. Although we do not address all the allegations raised by the protesters, we have considered them all and conclude that they do not provide a basis to sustain either protest. Evaluation of Technical Capabilities Both protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of their quotations under the technical capabilities factor and argue that their quotations should have received higher ratings.