File Not Found

B-424323 May 15, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Soft Tech Consulting Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the elimination of the quotation it submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) 70SBUR26Q00000001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for outcome-based delivery and development security operations services for the USCIS Office of Information Technology. Soft Tech asserts that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation for a minor mistake without engaging Soft Tech in clarifications. 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: Soft Tech Consulting, Inc. File: B-424323 Date: May 15, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Spiro, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Richard W. Postma, Esq., and Jessica Easton, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency should have engaged in clarifications with protester before rejecting quotation is denied; the agency was not required to engage in clarifications, and it was not otherwise unreasonable for the agency to decline to engage in clarifications. DECISION Soft Tech Consulting Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the elimination of the quotation it submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) 70SBUR26Q00000001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for outcome-based delivery and development security operations services for the USCIS Office of Information Technology. Soft Tech asserts that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation for a minor mistake without engaging Soft Tech in clarifications. We deny the protest. On January 16, 2026, DHS issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside to select vendors under the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), Special Identification Number (SIN) 54151S, Information Technology Professional Services. Req. for Dismissal (RFD) at 2. The solicitation is being conducted in accordance with the procedures of Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) section 8.401 and General Services Administration Manual subpart 538.71.[1] Electronic Protest Docketing System (Dkt.) No. 15. The RFQ provided for a multi-phase evaluation, which included an opt-in phase and a phase 1 coding challenge and technical demonstration. During the opt-in phase, vendors were required to complete a pricing schedule workbook. RFD, exh. 2, RFQ at 65. Column A of the workbook listed the labor category titles used in the performance work statement. Id. In column B, vendors were required to list their corresponding GSA FSS labor category titles. Id. For each labor category, vendors were required to provide the hourly rate from their GSA schedule, then their quoted rates with any applicable discounts for the transition-in period, base period, and subsequent option periods. Id. The RFQ provided, “. . . if any of the quoted labor rates are greater than the Quoter's GSA [multiple award schedule] labor rates the quoter will be deemed non-compliant, ineligible for award and will not continue on . . . to Phase 1 . . . .” RFQ at 66, 74. The RFQ also provided that “[t]he Government reserves the right to make an award on initial quotations,” and “[t]he Government may engage in clarifications to better understand aspects of the quotation.” Id. at 62-63. Soft Tech submitted a pricing workbook during the opt-in phase. For the project management lead labor category, in column B, Soft Tech listed a project manager, level A, as the corresponding labor category from its GSA FSS contract. Soft Tech's quoted labor rates for the project manager, level A for each of the transition-in period, base full performance period, and option 1 period, was $[DELETED]. For the option 2 period, it was $[DELETED]. Protest at 9; RFD at 3. The agency evaluated the workbook and determined that Soft Tech's proposed labor rates for the level A project manager were higher than $142.22, the rate listed in Soft Tech's GSA schedule contract for this labor category. Id. As a result, the agency eliminated Soft Tech's quotation from the competition and Soft Tech was not permitted to participate in the phase 1 coding challenge or technical demonstration. Id. The parties do not dispute that Soft Tech's pricing work book listed labor rates for its project manager, level A, that were higher than Soft Tech's GSA schedule rates for that labor category.