Tech Systems, Inc. (B-423547; B-423547.2; B-423547.3)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, past performance, discussions, best value

Date: 8 August 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423547%2Cb-423547.2%2Cb-423547.3

Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI), protested the Marine Corps’ award of a uniform alteration services contract to Hartwood, challenging a significant weakness assigned to TSI’s equipment plan, the evaluation of Hartwood’s past performance, whether the agency’s single transition‑readiness email to Hartwood constituted improper discussions, and the best value tradeoff. GAO denied the protest.

The solicitation required an equipment list by make, model, and year; TSI omitted those details, supporting the significant weakness. Hartwood’s first past‑performance reference supported a satisfactory confidence rating, and any dispute over “recency” for the second reference caused no competitive prejudice, as it would not have changed Hartwood’s satisfactory confidence rating.

The Corps’ email exchange with Hartwood confirming it “would be fully functional at the end of the transition-in period” was a clarification, not discussions.

Finally, the Marines reasonably declined to pay a roughly 6 percent premium for TSI’s higher past‑performance rating given equal technical ratings and TSI’s documented risk.

Protest denied. Offerors must follow RFP technical listing requirements exactly; incumbency or “close‑at‑hand” knowledge will not cure proposal omissions.

Digest

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals under the non‑price factors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and to the extent an error occurred, the protester has not demonstrated competitive prejudice.
2. Protest contending that the exchanges conducted with the awardee constituted improper discussions is denied where the agency’s exchanges were clarifications, rather than discussions.
3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision to select a lower-rated proposal at a lower price is denied where the record shows that the agency’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.