SupplyCore, Inc. (47QSCC24R0021)

B-424243,B-424243.2 Apr 09, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SupplyCore, Inc., of Rockford, Illinois, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Amentum Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QSCC24R0021, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for logistics operations solutions support services in Japan. SupplyCore argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. 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: SupplyCore, Inc. File: B-424243; B-424243.2 Date: April 9, 2026 Marlena Ewald, Esq., Michael T. Patterson, Esq., and Amanda Z. Sin, Esq., Fluet & Associates, PLLC, for the protester. Luke W. Meier, Esq., and Oliver Jury, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Amentum Services, Inc., the intervenor. Michael C. Evans, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION SupplyCore, Inc., of Rockford, Illinois, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Amentum Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QSCC24R0021, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for logistics operations solutions support services in Japan. SupplyCore argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2025, GSA issued the RFP, using the policies and procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, to procure logistics operations solutions support services. Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, RFP, amend. 3 at 4.[1] The contractor will provide a total global supply solution for federal and Department of Defense customers in the Indo-Pacific Command Japan Area of Responsibility covering a broad range of commercial supply items, such as office supplies, tools, hardware, housewares, and cleaning products. Id. The contractor will source, warehouse, and deliver commodities within three to five days for orders placed in Japan and five to seven business days for orders originating in Okinawa. Id. at 6. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price IDIQ contract to be performed over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP, amend. 3 at 5-6. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and non-price factors. RFP, amend. 3 at 96-97. Non-price factors, in descending order of importance, were: (1) technical excellence and capabilities; (2) operational quality assurance; (3) past performance; (4) small business utilization; and (5) live test demonstration. Id. at 97. When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price; however, price would increase in importance as the non-price factors become more closely rated. Id. at 98. Prior to the June 20 close of the solicitation period, SupplyCore, Amentum, and a third offeror submitted proposals. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 4. The agency's evaluation produced the following relevant results:   SupplyCore Amentum Technical Excellence and Capabilities Good Good Operational Quality Assurance Acceptable Outstanding Past Performance Very Relevant Relevant Small Business Utilization Satisfactory Satisfactory Live Test Demonstration Outstanding Outstanding Proposed Price $81,384,954 $77,780,735 AR, exh. 7, Price and Best Value Determination (PBVD) at 31-32. In conducting the best-value tradeoff analysis, the source selection authority (SSA) compared the underlying merit of the proposals under each factor. Id. at 33-45. The SSA determined that SupplyCore's proposal was “slightly more beneficial” under the technical excellence and capabilities factor and demonstrated a better record of past performance due to its status as the incumbent contractor. Id. at 43-44. Amentum's proposal was evaluated as “significantly more beneficial” under the operational quality assurance factor because it was evaluated as having two unique strengths while SupplyCore demonstrated only an adequate approach. Id. at 41-42, 44. The SSA considered both proposals to be equivalent under the small business utilization and live test demonstration factors. Id. at 44.