Stondoh Secure Digital Solutions (1604DC-26-R-00003)

B-424439 Jul 06, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Stondoh LLC, a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to WINTrio LLC, a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1604DC-26-R-00003, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services. The protester contends that the agency's award decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Stondoh LLC File: B-424439 Date: July 6, 2026 LaTonya Hall for the protester. Jonathan Heinz, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging reasonableness of best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that the decision was consistent with the solicitation and adequately documented. DECISION Stondoh LLC, a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to WINTrio LLC, a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1604DC-26-R-00003, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services. The protester contends that the agency's award decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside on February 19, 2026, under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1] Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ at 31. The RFQ sought quotations to provide professional security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services for the Department of Labor's federal information systems. Id. at 34. The agency contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. Id. at 32. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering a technical evaluation factor and price. Id. at 50. The technical factor, which was significantly more important than price, included three equally important subfactors: understanding of the requirement; management approach; and key personnel. Id. at 49-50. The Department of Labor received 26 quotations by the March 5, 2026, submission deadline. Contracting Officer's Statement at 5. The agency evaluated the technical factor, assigning quotations an adjectival rating of “outstanding,” “good,” “acceptable,” “marginal,” or “unacceptable.” Id. at 13-14. For price, the agency evaluated the total overall proposed price for completeness and reasonableness. Id. at 14. The agency summarized the evaluation of relevant quotations as follows:   Stondoh WINTrio Technical Outstanding Good Price $979,800 $550,276 AR, Exh. 4, Award Decision Memorandum (ADM) at 60-61. The contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority (SSA), ultimately concluded that WINTrio's quotation represented the best value. Id. at 82-84. On April 14, the agency provided Stondoh with a brief explanation of the basis for award. AR, Exh. 3, Brief Explanation at 53-54. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Stondoh argues that the source selection decision was unreasonable.[2] According to the protester, the best-value tradeoff “is inconsistent with the evaluation record” and the solicitation because the SSA “effectively minimizes or disregards” the advantages found in Stondoh's quotation during the technical evaluation and “relies almost entirely on the magnitude of the price” difference between the vendors. Comments at 3-4. The Department of Labor counters that the contemporaneous record demonstrates that the SSA understood the differences identified in the vendor's technical quotations and adequately documented the reasonable basis for determining that WINTrio's quotation represented the best value to the government. In the SSA's view, Stondoh's technical advantages did not justify the firm's higher price, which was significantly higher than the awardee's price as well as the independent government cost estimate (IGCE). Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 23-24. We have considered all of Stondoh's allegations, and we conclude that none provides a basis to sustain the protest. Here, the agency asserts simply that the FSS solicitation was issued “under the FAR codified at Title 48 of the CFR [Code of Federal Regulations].”[3] Id. at 19. The procedures under subpart 8.4 of the FAR and subpart 538.71 of the GSAM provide for a streamlined procurement process with minimal documentation requirements. FAR 8.405-2(f); GSAM 538.7102-2(b)(5); Citizant, Inc.; Steampunk, Inc., B‑420660 et al., July 13, 2022, at 19.