File Not Found

B-424395,B-424395.2,B-424395.3 Jul 07, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hudson Technologies Company, of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to RGAS LLC, of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A7-25-R-0788, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably relied on the awardee's domestic end product certification and unreasonably evaluated the awardee's past performance. 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: Hudson Technologies Company File: B-424395; B-424395.2; B-424395.3 Date: July 7, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Steven C. Herrera, Esq., and Jenna R. Mazzella, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Hal J. Perloff, Esq., Samuel W. Jack, Esq., and Bhargavi Kalaga, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for RGAS LLC, the intervenor. Robert E. Sebold, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably relied on awardee's certification that it was offering domestic end products is denied where the record reflects the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. 2. Protest challenging agency's past performance evaluation is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and reasonable. DECISION Hudson Technologies Company, of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to RGAS LLC, of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A7-25-R-0788, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably relied on the awardee's domestic end product certification and unreasonably evaluated the awardee's past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2025, DLA issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 (acquisition of commercial items/services) and part 15 (contracting by negotiation), seeking to award one or more fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for eleven types of HFC gases, listed by national stock number (NSN).[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 3. Offerors also were to provide cylinders listed under NSN 8120-01-204-0182 and NSN 8120-01-316-2208. Id. The solicitation contemplated the award of the contracts on a line-by-line basis for a one‑year base period and two one-year option periods. Id. Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering price and two technical factors--technical capability and past performance--which were to be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. AR, Tab 3(3), RFP sects. L & M at 1; Tab 4, SAM Synopsis at 2. The evaluation of technical capability is not at issue in this protest. With regard to past performance, the RFP advised offerors that the agency would evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the government's confidence in the offeror's ability to perform as proposed. RFP at 3. The RFP defined current past performance as “ongoing or completed within the last three calendar years from the solicitation open date” and relevant past performance as supplying services and products that are “the same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude (i.e., dollar value, volume) to the requirements of the solicitation.” Id. The past performance evaluation was to consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall performance record. Id. The RFP did not request offerors to submit any past performance information. Id.; Supp. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (Supp. COS/MOL) at 2. Rather, the solicitation advised offerors that the agency would evaluate “suppliers' past performance”[2] using the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).[3] Id. Under the past performance factor, the RFP defined an acceptable proposal as one that provides the government “a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.” RFP at 7. The RFP incorporated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provision 252.225-7000, Buy American--Balance of Payments Program Certificate (Buy American certificate), which requires offerors to certify whether their proposed products are domestic end products from the United States, foreign end products from a qualifying country, or foreign end products from a non-qualifying country.