Subsidium, Inc. (B-423708)

You should care.

Categories: Multiple Award Schedule explanations, phased evaluations, best value tradeoff

Date: 11 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423708

Subsidium protested the State Department’s establishment of a single‑award FSS BPA with Concordant LLC for human resources and acquisition professional support services. Subsidium alleged State failed to provide a timely brief explanation of award and did not document a rational tradeoff for Concordant’s roughly 41‑percent price premium.

Brief explanations are procedural: GAO dismissed complaints about the timing and adequacy of State’s brief explanation. In FSS and other negotiated procurements, debriefings or brief explanations concern post‑award communications and do not affect the validity of the underlying evaluation or source selection.

Phased evaluation and early down‑select: FSI used a four‑phase scheme (small‑business/clearance, technical, past performance, price). Subsidium passed Phase I but received low confidence ratings on both technical and past performance, while Concordant scored high confidence on both, with a much higher price. Under a solicitation clause allowing the agency to stop considering quotations “no longer among the most highly rated,” the SSA reasonably excluded Subsidium and two other lower‑rated vendors from price comparison.

Tradeoff between the top two only: The SSA then compared the two highest‑rated vendors in detail, documenting why Concordant’s stronger recruiting strategy, management structure, and quality control plan justified paying more than a lower‑priced, lower‑rated competitor. GAO found the award decision memorandum provided a sufficient narrative linking those qualitative advantages to the price premium.

Digest

Subsidium, Inc., a small business of Manassas, Virginia, protests the establishment of a federal supply schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Concordant LLC… The protester alleges the agency failed to provide a timely requested brief explanation of award, and contends the agency failed to document a tradeoff rationale.