NexGen Data Systems, Inc. (B-423209.2; B-423209.3)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, process issue, IDIQ

Date: 29 May 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423209.2%2Cb-423209.3

NexGen Data Systems, Inc., protested the Navy’s issuance of a SeaPort-NxG IDIQ task order for IT support services to Modus21, LLC. NexGen argued that the agency’s evaluation under the technical capability and technical understanding factors was flawed, particularly in the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and the application of evaluation criteria, and that this led to an improper best value determination.

After evaluating both proposals, the agency found Modus21 slightly technically superior overall despite NexGen being rated slightly higher under technical capability and equally under staffing plan. The protest centered on whether Modus21’s quote was properly credited with a significant strength, whether weaknesses should have carried more weight, and whether NexGen’s quote deserved additional strengths.

GAO found that the agency reasonably assessed Modus21’s breadth of cloud solution experience; judged the risks arising from technical weaknesses to be “nominal,” a decision grounded in qualitative analysis rather than rigid box-checking; and that the agency had discretion not to assign certain strengths to NexGen’s quote, especially where proposed tools or approaches were not usable or were technically questionable. Even had Navy erred by overlooking a single strength for NexGen, this would not have changed the outcome given the overall technical and cost evaluation.

Protest denied.

Digest

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s terms.
2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the majority of the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s terms, and the protester cannot otherwise demonstrate competitive prejudice arising from a single allegedly overlooked strength.