SOFITC3, LLC (B-423259.3; B-423259.4)

You should not care.

Category: Interested party, best value tradeoff, past performance

Date: 17 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423259.3%2Cb-423259.4

SOFITC3, LLC, protested the DOD’s Defense Health Agency’s (DHA’s) issuance of a GSA Schedule order for test and evaluation IT services to OTOT Technologies, LLC. SOFITC3 argued that DHA unreasonably evaluated OTOT’s past performance, failed to enforce the subcontracting limitations, and did not sufficiently justify its best value tradeoff decision.

Following corrective action on an earlier protest, DHA evaluated eight technically acceptable offers. SOFITC3 outscored OTOT on past performance (“substantial confidence” v. “satisfactory confidence”), but its price was significantly higher (about 19 percent more than the next ranked offeror and almost 70 percent more than OTOT). The source selection authority found SOFITC3 and another offeror (Offeror X) to be essentially equal under past performance, with Offeror X priced significantly lower (but not as low as OTOT). A detailed tradeoff analysis found no warranted price premium for SOFITC3, and ultimately DHA selected OTOT based on overall value.

Adequacy of best-value tradeoff decision: GAO found DHA’s tradeoff and its record documentation were reasonable; the source selection authority made a qualitative comparison (not just a mechanical review of adjectival ratings).

Interested party status: GAO held SOFITC3 was not next in line for award—even if its protest succeeded—because another technically acceptable, lower-price offeror (Offeror X) would be in line for award.

Evaluation of past performance/technical factors: Challenges to OTOT’s evaluations (including past performance and subcontracting) were not considered on their merits, as SOFITC3 lacked standing.

The protest was denied. The decision reiterates that GAO will not review arguments from offerors who are not “interested parties.” The adequacy of a best-value tradeoff rests with whether the agency is demonstrably aware of the merits and costs of the competitors and can document its rationale accordingly. For industry, it is a reminder that if another offeror clearly ranks ahead of a protester, additional protest grounds are unlikely to be heard.

Digest

1. Protest challenging the sufficiency of the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that the decision was reasonable and adequately documented.
2. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal where the protester’s proposal would not be next in line for award, even if its allegations were sustained.