SOFIS-TRG, LLC (B-423667)

You should not care.

Categories: Past performance, technical evaluation

Date: 16 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423667

SOFIS-TRG protests the award of a contract to MilTrain JV II under an RFP issued by the Air Force for MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft training services. Both offerors received ratings of acceptable for the technical factor and substantial confidence for past performance. MilTrain's proposed price of $84.6 million was approximately $1.4 million lower than SOFIS-TRG's $86 million. SOFIS-TRG argues the agency improperly equalized the two firms' past performance confidence ratings because SOFIS-TRG submitted one additional "very relevant" reference compared to MilTrain.

Past performance: GAO found the evaluation reasonable. The solicitation did not instruct evaluators to compare offerors' past performance records against each other when assigning confidence ratings. The source selection authority looked behind the ratings and determined that, despite the relevancy difference, both offerors demonstrated a high expectation of successful performance based on their overall records. The SSA's narrative analysis acknowledged SOFIS-TRG's additional very relevant reference but concluded it did not render the firm's past performance meaningfully superior.

Best value tradeoff: Because the SSA reasonably found neither offeror superior under past performance, the $1.4 million price premium for SOFIS-TRG's proposal was not warranted. SOFIS-TRG's assertion that its record "outperforms" MilTrain's reflects disagreement with the agency's judgment, not a basis to sustain the protest.

The protest is denied.

Digest

1. Protest that the agency improperly equalized the past performance confidence assessment ratings of the proposals of the protester and awardee is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with procurement law and regulation.
2. Allegation that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where, after the source selection authority considered proposal differences under the past performance factor, he determined that neither proposal was superior under the factor and that payment of a price premium for the protester's higher priced proposal was therefore not in the agency's best interest.