Mobomo LLC

Decision

Matter of: Mobomo LLC

File: B-423027.2; B-423027.3

Date: June 17, 2025

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, even-handed, and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

2. Protest contending the agency’s failure, as part of its corrective action, to engage in exchanges with the protester constituted unequal discussions is denied where the agency’s conduct was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice.

Mobomo LLC, a small business of Gaithersburg, Maryland, protests the issuance of an order to ResolveSoft Inc., a small business of Elkridge, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1305M324Q0367, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for web modernization and maintenance services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and conduct of exchanges.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the solicitation on August 9, 2024, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules), to small business firms holding the General Services Administration’s (GSA) multiple-award federal supply schedule (FSS) contract for information technology professional services. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1-3.[1] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single order, with a 6-month phase-in period, a 1‑year base period of performance and two 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 1-3. NOAA sought support services to maintain and enhance the National Marine Fisheries Service flagship website, www.fisheries.noaa.gov. AR, Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4.

The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three non-price factors: (1) technical approach; (2) staffing and management approach/key personnel; and (3) experience. RFQ at 65. The RFQ explained that the non-price factors were of equal importance and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 64-65. NOAA would apply one of three adjectival confidence ratings for each of the non-price evaluation factors: high confidence; some confidence; and low confidence. Id. at 65.

Under the technical approach factor, quotations would be evaluated “to assess the degree to which the quote demonstrates an adequate understanding of, sound approach to, and experience to successfully perform the requirements stated within this solicitation.” Id. at 65. While the staffing and management approach/key personnel factor would similarly be evaluated to assess whether the vendor “demonstrates an adequate understanding of, sound approach to, and experience to successfully perform the [RFQ’s] requirements[,]” the agency would also evaluate “the strength of the proposed key personnel including education and professional certifications/credentials” and “the currency, quality and depth of experience of the proposed key personnel working on similar projects.” Id.

Under the experience factor, NOAA would “determine the recency and relevancy based on similar size, scope, and magnitude to the PWS” and “evaluate the quality, depth and degree of the quoter’s experience.” Id. The RFQ further explained that “the quoter’s experience will be evaluated to assess the Government’s level of confidence of its demonstrated experience with platforms, systems, methodology, and software identified in the PWS, or similarly related technology, including, but not limited to, Acquia Drupal[2] [platform as a service (PaaS)], Akamai [web application firewall (WAF)/content delivery network (CDN)], Agile/Scrum methodology, [user experience (UX)]-driven design and development, and data-driven decision making.” Id. Price would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Id. at 66.

The RFQ allowed for exchanges with the apparent successful vendor prior to award. RFP at 64. Specifically, the solicitation explained:

Once the Government determines the contractor that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful contractor), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that contractor to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that contractor. These issues may include technical/staffing/management/key personnel and price, as well as increasing or decreasing the level of effort and/or requirements due to funding availability and changes to the period of performance at the Government’s discretion.

Id.

The agency received timely submitted quotations from three vendors, including from Mobomo and ResolveSoft. COS at 6. Following its evaluation, NOAA identified ResolveSoft as the best-suited vendor and entered into exchanges with the firm. COS at 7. Through these exchanges, ResolveSoft upwardly revised its price quotation. AR, Tab 17, Exchanges with ResolveSoft at 1; AR, Tab 28, ResolveSoft Pricing Revisions at 2. NOAA issued the order to ResolveSoft on September 19. COS at 8.

Mobomo filed a protest with our Office on October 3, challenging NOAA’s evaluation of quotations. On October 15, our Office dismissed Mobomo’s protest as academic, based on the agency’s stated intention to undertake corrective action; NOAA explained it would “re-evaluate the quotes it received in response to the solicitation and subsequently issue a new source selection decision.” Mobomo LLC, B-423027, Oct. 15, 2024 (unpublished decision).

In implementing its corrective action, NOAA undertook a reevaluation of quotations, resulting in the following ratings for Mobomo’s and ResolveSoft’s quotations:

	Mobomo	ResolveSoft
Technical Approach	Some Confidence	Some Confidence
Staffing and Management Approach/Key Personnel	Some Confidence	Some Confidence
Experience	Some Confidence	Some Confidence
Total Evaluated Price	$11,030,164	$11,470,934

 

AR, Tab 24, Corrective Action Award Decision Document (ADD) at 12.

NOAA found ResolveSoft’s quotation to represent the best value to the agency, “considering its technically superior approach, senior key personnel, and extensive experience.” Id. at 16. The agency further explained that “ResolveSoft’s quote offers a technically superior, low risk option compared to Mobomo, and the technically superior features . . . are worth the slight price premium associated with ResolveSoft’s quote.” Id. NOAA issued the task order to ResolveSoft on or about February 26, 2025. COS at 14. Mobomo filed the instant protest on March 10.

DISCUSSION

Mobomo marshals several challenges to the agency’s conduct of the procurement. In this regard, the protester contends the agency’s evaluation of its quotation across the non-price factors was flawed, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. Specifically, Mobomo argues NOAA improperly identified a number of quotation features that decreased the agency’s confidence that the firm could successfully perform the contract and applied unstated evaluation criteria. Moreover, the protester asserts the evaluation was unequal, where NOAA applied a much harsher standard to its review of Mobomo’s quotation as compared to ResolveSoft’s quotation. The protester also alleges that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate quotations in a manner consistent with the RFQ’s evaluation scheme. Additionally, the protester argues the agency erred by not also engaging in exchanges with Mobomo. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis to sustain the protest.[3]

Technical Evaluation

Where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition for the issuance of an order or establishment of a blanket purchase agreement, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 3-4; DEI Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 151 at 2. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. OPTIMUS Corp., B‑400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 33 at 4. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. DEI Consulting, supra at 2.

We have reviewed each of Mobomo’s arguments concerning the agency’s evaluation under the non-price factors, and, as reflected in the following representative examples, we find no basis to sustain the protest.

First, Mobomo challenges the agency’s assessment of items that decreased the agency’s confidence in the protester’s quotation under the technical approach factor. Relevant here, the technical approach factor was to be “evaluated to assess the degree to which the quote demonstrates an adequate understanding of, sound approach to, and experience to successfully perform the requirements stated within this solicitation.” RFQ at 65. Both vendors were assigned a “some confidence” rating under this factor. AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 3, 9. For Mobomo’s quotation, while NOAA found several technical features that increased the agency’s confidence of successful performance, NOAA found five elements that were identified to decrease the agency’s confidence, all of which Mobomo challenges in this protest.

As one example, under the PWS’s project management task (task 1), the successful vendor will be expected to, among other things, “[m]anage software upgrades in a timely manner and without disruptions to existing systems or processes.” PWS at 6. In its evaluation, the agency stated that Mobomo’s quotation “does not address a strategy or method for how software upgrades will be conducted in a way that minimizes disruptions[.]” AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 3. The protester finds fault with the agency’s conclusions, contending its quotation did manifest a cogent strategy for software upgrades with little disruption. Protest at 24-25; Comments and Supp. Protest at 18-20; 2nd Supp. Comments at 16-17.[4] Specifically, Mobomo points to its four-phased risk management plan, use of the Jira software application for software upgrade tracking and documentation, and its use of continuous integration and deployment. See AR, Tab 10, Mobomo Technical Quotation at 8-10.

However, the agency disagrees that these features, and Mobomo’s overall plan, were sufficiently detailed to warrant a different evaluation finding. The technical evaluation team (TET) chair provided a declaration to support the agency’s findings, in which he noted that the protester’s plan lacked specificity. TET Chair Dec. at 2. For example, with respect to its four-phased risk management plan, the TET chair explains that Mobomo’s plan is “simply too high-level” and does not sufficiently describe how Mobomo’s approach would minimize disruptions. Id. Similarly, with respect to continuous integration and development, the TET chair provides that while these are important tools, these “primarily focus on code quality and security, not on ensuring a smooth and disruption-free upgrade.” Id.

Moreover, with respect to Mobomo’s use of Jira, the TET chair explains that this web-based tool is essentially a service request tracking notebook. Id. But, while “[t]aking notes is necessary to do,” the TET chair provides that reliance on Jira “is a lackluster response to this requirement” because it is not wholly responsive to meet the agency’s need, nor was its use explained with sufficient detail with respect to minimizing disruptions. Id. at 2-3. Mobomo disagrees with the TET’s assessment; in the protester’s view, “Jira is not just a web-based tracking tool; rather, it is a project management platform used for quality assurance.” 2nd Supp. Comments at 15-16. In this regard, the protester’s protest submissions argue that Jira represents a multi-step process that “ensures quality and minimizes disruptions during software upgrades.” Id. at 16.

However, given the lack of these supporting details presented in Mobomo’s quotation (rather than as further explained in the protester’s briefs during this protest), we cannot conclude the agency’s evaluation determinations are unreasonable. Compare AR, Tab 10, Mobomo Technical Quotation at 9 (noting only the use Jira to “track, monitor, and plan for software upgrades, minimizing disruption to existing systems and ensuring timely updates”) with 2nd Supp. Comments at 15-17 (providing significant detail on how Jira would be utilized for software upgrades). As addressed above, it is a vendor’s responsibility to submit a quotation with adequately detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements. Yukon Fire Prot. Servs., supra. To the extent Mobomo’s protest submissions attempt to more clearly articulate its proposed technical approach, our review is limited to the quotation, as submitted, as contracting agencies are not responsible for evaluating information that is not included in a quotation. Patriot Def. Grp., LLC, B-418720.3, Aug. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 265 at 9.

Second, Mobomo also suggests NOAA’s evaluation conclusions under the technical approach factor reflect unequal treatment among vendors, where the agency applied exacting scrutiny to the protester’s quotation yet acted with insouciance when it came to ResolveSoft’s alleged lack of similar detail. That is, to prevail on an allegation of disparate treatment, a protester must show that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation in a different manner than another quotation that was substantively indistinguishable or nearly identical. CGI Fed., Inc., B-423041 et al., Jan.13, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 26 at 12.

As one example of alleged unequal treatment, Mobomo points to NOAA’s acceptance of the alleged mere mention of the use of Jira in ResolveSoft’s quotation but required significant detailed explanations when it came to Mobomo’s use of Jira. 2nd Supp. Comments at 16. The protester’s comparison is inapposite. To this point, the record reflects that NOAA found benefit in ResolveSoft’s overall quality control and assurance (task 3) plan, to include its approach to “defect tracking”, where the awardee explained it would “use Jira for defect tracking, linking defects to user stories to reduce recurrence by [DELETED] [percent].” AR, Tab 14, ResolveSoft Technical Quotation at 12; see also AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 9 (explaining several features of ResolveSoft’s quotation that increased confidence in successful performance, to include that the firm’s quotation “mentions using Jira for defect tracking, ensuring that defects are linked to user stories to reduce recurrence by [DELETED] [percent]” which “highlights a structured approach to defect documentation and issue tracking.”).

On the other hand, the agency faulted Mobomo’s quotation because while it also proposed to use Jira, the protester failed to explain how such use would allow for the management of “software upgrades in a timely manner and without disruptions to existing systems or processes” as required under PWS task 1. PWS at 6; see also TET Chair Dec. at 2-3 (explaining that Jira is primarily a tool for service tracking as opposed to implementation). Thus, the agency credited the awardee for its proposed use of Jira in connection with defect tracking under PWS task 3, while awarding a weakness for the protester’s failure to adequately explain the use of the tool in connection with management of software upgrades under PWS task 1; the differences in the agency’s evaluation reasonably stem from differences in the quotations.

Similarly, the protester’s argument of disparate treatment concerning the vendors’ capability maturity model integration (CMMI) level 3 certifications fails to provide a basis on which to sustain the protest.[5] Mobomo contends NOAA relied on this certification to “mitigate” a weakness assigned to ResolveSoft, yet did not do so for a “similar” weakness assigned to the protester’s quotation. As an initial matter, the record reflects the CMMI certification was found to increase confidence of successful performance for both Mobomo and ResolveSoft.[6] Notwithstanding that both vendors were positively credited for the same quotation feature, the protester complains that it was unreasonable for the agency to also address the awardee’s certification as helping to mitigate an assessed weakness, while not similarly mentioning the protester’s certification as helping to mitigate one of the protester’s assessed weaknesses. 2nd Supp. Comments at 17-18. However, to whatever extent the record suggests that the agency considered ResolveSoft’s CMMI level 3 certification, in this regard, it also makes clear that both offerors were similarly assessed weaknesses for providing inadequate detail in their responses to the PWS task 1 requirements, thus negating any alleged “unequal” treatment.

Specifically, Mobomo received a weakness because its quotation did “not address a strategy or method for how software upgrades will be conducted in a way that minimizes disruptions (PWS Task 1).” AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 3. The record reflects that ResolveSoft similarly received a weakness for its failure to provide adequate details with respect to managing project risks under PWS task 1. Id. at 9. Although the awardee was positively evaluated based on its “comprehensive and carefully planned” approach to project management and its approach to planning and task decomposition, the agency noted concern with the lack of adequate detail in the awardee’s plan to “identify risks, minimize the impact of unforeseen issues, respond to outages, or manage software upgrades.” Id. at 8-10. The TET explained that ResolveSoft’s CMMI level 3 certification “indicates the use of processes that support effective risk management,” and the quotation otherwise provided some software upgrade details under PWS task 7. Id. at 10.

Fatal to the protester’s argument, however, is that notwithstanding the foregoing potential mitigating points, the TET nevertheless assigned a weakness to ResolveSoft’s quotation, specifically explaining that “[t]he omission from Task 1 decreases the Government’s confidence that Team ResolveSoft can effectively manage project risks with minimal intervention.” Id. at 10. Accordingly, to whatever degree the agency considered the awardee’s CMMI certification, it nevertheless assigned a weakness to the awardee’s quotation. Thus, where both vendors were positively assessed for possessing CMMI certifications, and neither offeror avoided an adverse evaluation finding as a result of their certifications, the record fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unequal.

Next, Mobomo argues the agency, in contravention of the terms of the RFQ, failed to reasonably consider “experience” in its evaluation of vendors’ offered technical approaches under the first evaluation factor. See Protest at 37-38; 2nd Supp. Comments at 27-28. As noted above, under the technical approach factor, a vendor’s “overall technical approach will be evaluated to assess the degree to which the quote demonstrates an adequate understanding of, sound approach to, and experience to successfully perform the requirements stated within this solicitation.” (emphasis added). This evaluation factor was distinct from the third evaluation factor, which specifically evaluated vendors’ prior experience. RFQ at 65. The protester contends NOAA, in its evaluation under the technical approach factor, overlooked the firm’s “unmatched track record in performing the RFQ requirements on behalf of NOAA under the incumbent contract[,]” as well as its high marks for such performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and in turn failed to consider ResolveSoft’s alleged lack of relevant federal experience. Protest at 37. The protester’s arguments unreasonably characterize the agency’s contemporaneous evaluation record, which demonstrates that the agency reasonably considered offerors’ relevant experience as part of the technical approach factor.

Relevant here, the contemporaneous evaluation record unquestionably demonstrates that the agency, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, considered vendors’ respective experience as part of the technical approach evaluation. Specifically, the agency identified three aspects of Mobomo’s prior experience that increased the agency’s confidence under the technical approach factor, including:

·As the incumbent, Mobomo has an understanding of and significant experience with NOAA Fisheries’ processes, priorities, and organizational structure and the websites’ infrastructure, codebase, and policies. . . .

·Mobomo’s status as a Drupal Certified Partner, Acquia Community Partner, and member of the [Amazon Web Services] Partner Network increases the Government’s confidence that they have the experience to perform the project requirements related to hosting, devops, and performance monitoring. . . .

·Mobomo’s experience with Drupal’s multilingual modules and integrating third-party translation services increases the Government’s confidence that they can successfully execute PWS Task 6 requirements related to page translations if the Government chooses to carry out that optional special project.

AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 3.

For ResolveSoft, the agency positively noted that: “Team ResolveSoft’s bench of Acquia- and Drupal-certified developers and 20+ years of Drupal development experience increases the Government’s confidence that they have the experience to perform the project requirements related to hosting, devops, and performance monitoring.” Id. at 9.

Thus, the record demonstrates that--separate and apart from the evaluation of vendors’ respective experience under the experience evaluation factor--the agency also reasonably considered vendors’ respective relevant experience under the technical approach factor. To the extent that the protester raises additional discrete challenges to the agency’s evaluation of experience, we find no merit to those arguments.

For example, notwithstanding that the agency positively credited Mobomo for its incumbent experience under the technical approach factor (as noted above), the protester suggests that such a strength should have been afforded considerably more significance. We disagree. We have consistently explained that there is no requirement that an incumbent be given extra credit for its status as an incumbent, or that an agency assign or reserve the highest rating for the incumbent contractor. Tuknik Gov’t Servs., LLC, B‑422862.2, Dec. 30, 2024, 2025 CPD ¶ 17 at 4.

Similarly, the protester’s allegation that ResolveSoft should have been downgraded for not having relevant federal experience fails to establish a basis on which to sustain the protest. Nothing in the technical approach factor limited experience only to relevant federal experience; rather, the agency was only to evaluate proffered experience to the extent it demonstrated the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements stated within the solicitation. See RFQ at 65. Given the commercial nature of the software at issue, it was not unreasonable for the agency to consider an offeror’s general experience working with the software or platforms, regardless of whether the customer was a government or commercial entity. In this regard, the experience evaluation factor specifically allowed for the submission of references for work performed for government agencies or commercial entities, and noted that in terms of relevance, the government was particularly interested in “the quoter’s demonstrated experience with platforms, systems, methodology, and software identified in the PWS, or similarly related technology, including, but not limited to, Acquia Drupal PaaS, Akamai WAF/CDN, Agile/Scrum methodology, UX-driven design and development, and data-driven decision making.” RFQ at 60. The protester does not offer any reason why the relevancy considerations for the technical approach factor should be read more restrictively than the relevancy requirements set forth under the experience evaluation factor.

As a final example of its challenges under the technical approach factor, the protester argues the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria where NOAA unreasonably inflated the importance of PWS task 3 (quality control and quality assurance) and task 5 (user experience, usability, design, and content support) in its evaluation. Comments and Supp. Protest at 8-14; Supp. Comments at 9-14; 2nd Supp. Comments at 29-34. In this regard, Mobomo contends that the RFQ did not provide for giving more weight to different tasks in the agency’s evaluation yet the agency’s best-value decision elevated tasks 3 and 5 above all others, which fundamentally skewed NOAA’s selection decision. Id. Mobomo points to a specific portion of the agency’s award decision in support of its argument:

As the incumbent, Mobomo brings institutional knowledge and experience with [agency] processes, priorities, and organizational structure, as well as the website’s infrastructure, codebase, and policies. However, the current requirement expands on and introduces requirements intended to enhance both service quality (user experience, website performance, and reliability) and product quality (code integrity, feature functionality, and technical performance), which differ from the previous contract supported by Mobomo and reflect the project’s more advanced state. It is in meeting these requirements that Mobomo is inferior to the other vendor.

AR, Tab 24, ADD at 13-14.

It is a fundamental principle of federal procurement that an agency must evaluate quotations consistent with the terms of the solicitation and, while the evaluation of vendors’ quotations generally is a matter within the procuring agency’s discretion, our Office will question an agency’s evaluation where it is unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, or undocumented. Tantus Techs., Inc., B‑411608, B-411608.3, Sept. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 299 at 6.

Contrary to the protester’s contention, the record does not support Mobomo’s assertion regarding the unfair weighting of PWS tasks 3 and 5 in the agency’s evaluation under the technical approach factor. First, the technical evaluation demonstrates the agency considered the positive and negative aspects of both vendors’ quotations across all the PWS task areas. See, e.g., AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 3-4, 9-10. Second, the record evidences that the source selection authority did highlight Mobomo’s deficiencies, as compared to ResolveSoft, specifically with regard to elements of PWS tasks 3 and 5. See e.g., AR, Tab 24, ADD at 13 (noting that Mobomo’s “technical approach lacked clarity and details in several key aspects of the PWS, specifically in [tasks 3 and 5].”).

However, the same paragraph cited by the protester as confirmation of impermissible weighting of PWS tasks 3 and 5 also highlights Mobomo’s shortcomings in another PWS area, task 1 (project management). Id. (identifying Mobomo’s quotation as lacking detail in how it would handle defect recurrence). Thus, the record does not support a contention that NOAA was exclusively concerned with PWS tasks 3 and 5. Third, and most relevant to our analysis, the mere fact that a source selection authority finds discriminators in some, but not all, of the evaluated tasks does not equate to the agency’s consideration of those specific tasks above all others. Indeed, in a best-value procurement, particularly where technical factors are more important than price, an agency may focus on a particular discriminator, and merely highlighting a specific aspect of a quotation in the selection decision does not, by itself, render the evaluation unreasonable. See, e.g., SGT, Inc., B-405736, B-405736.2 Dec. 27, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 149 at 10; Teledyne Brown Eng’g, B-258078; B‑258078.2, Dec. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD ¶ 223 at 12-13.

Next, turning to the agency’s evaluation under the staffing and management approach/key personnel factor, Mobomo challenges NOAA’s evaluation of its key personnel, arguing the agency unreasonably found that the resumes for all three of the firm’s key persons failed to demonstrate experience in several key PWS areas. Protest at 39-48; Comments and Supp. Protest at 26-32; Supp. Comments at 17-18; 2nd Supp. Comments at 34-59. Again, based upon our review of the record, we find nothing unreasonable with the agency’s evaluation. We address one representative example, below.

Vendors were required to submit resumes for three identified key persons: (1) a web project manager/scrum master; (2) lead developer/technical architect; and (3) digital product analyst/UX researcher. RFQ at 13, 59-60. NOAA would evaluate, among other things, “the strength of the proposed key personnel including education and professional certifications/credentials” as well as “the currency, quality and depth of experience of the proposed key personnel working on similar projects.” RFQ at 65. For each identified key personnel position, the PWS provided a bullet point list of primary responsibilities. See e.g., PWS at 14 (identifying 13 core areas the web project manager/scrum master would perform).

The agency’s evaluation found several aspects of Mobomo’s proposed web project manager/scrum master that increase NOAA’s confidence in successful performance of the contract. See AR, Tab 23, Evaluation Report at 4 (identifying several positive aspects of the web project manager’s resume and experience relevant to the subject PWS). However, the evaluators also found that the web project manager’s resume did not demonstrate “experience in three responsibilities of the role that are important to the success of project requirements and goals[.]” Id. at 5. Specifically, the TET explained that the project manager/scrum master did not demonstrate experience to: (1) monitor and manage project risks throughout the development process, which “directly relates to risk management requirements”; (2) oversee quality control and quality assurance processes, which was identified as “critical to the successful execution of the approach Mobomo presents[]”; and (3) oversee documentation of the website’s architecture and configurations as well as project processes, a requirement for PWS tasks 1 and 3. Id.; see also PWS at 14.

Mobomo contends these findings are in error. Indeed, the protester argues while its proposed web project manager/scrum master’s “resume does not use the exact words called out in the Re-Evaluation Summary, a complete review of his resume demonstrates [he] has experience with each of these three responsibilities.” Protest at 40. In this regard, Mobomo argues the key person’s experience managing a Drupal upgrade, oversight of daily scrums, experience using a process implementation indicator description (PIID) to monitor project health, and maintenance of CMMI-compliant documentation satisfy the PWS requirements. 2nd Supp. Comments at 34‑41.

Our Office has consistently stated that it is a vendor’s responsibility to submit a well-written quotation, with adequately detailed information that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements. Yukon Fire Prot. Servs. Inc., supra at 5. A vendor risks having its quotation evaluated unfavorably where it fails to submit an adequately written quotation. Id.

On this record, we find no evidence to suggest the agency’s evaluation conclusions were unreasonable. For example, concerning the web project manager’s leading a Drupal upgrade, as explained by the TET chair in his declaration, “software upgrade risk management and continuous risk management are related but different in scope and application.” TET Chair Dec. at 6. Thus, “[m]anaging a Drupal upgrade can demonstrate some aspects of risk management experience, but that experience alone does not fully demonstrate risk management” because “[r]isk management is an ongoing, structured process.” Id. Similarly, while Mobomo argues the key person’s experience overseeing daily scrum meetings demonstrates oversight of quality control/assurance processes, the TET disagreed. The TET chair explains scrum meetings “can help surface quality-related issues and improve communication between developers and testers, [but] they do not constitute [quality control/assurance] oversight.” Id. We find reasonable the agency’s evaluation conclusions; Mobomo’s disagreement, without more, provides no basis to sustain the protest. DEI Consulting, supra at 2.

Exchanges

Following its initial evaluation of quotations, NOAA, having determined that ResolveSoft was the apparent successful vendor, entered into exchanges with the firm. See RFQ at 64 (“Once the Government determines the contractor that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful contractor), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that contractor to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that contractor.”). The agency sought clarification concerning where certain subscription and hosting platform costs were included in ResolveSoft’s price quotation. Supp. COS at 10-11. ResolveSoft submitted a revised pricing quotation in response, resulting in an increase in price of approximately $[DELETED]. AR, Tab 24, ADD at 10. Following Mobomo’s initial protest, NOAA, as part of its corrective action, conducted a reevaluation of quotations, but did not engage in any additional exchanges with either the protester or ResolveSoft. Id.

The protester challenges the agency’s failure to enter into exchanges with Mobomo as part of its corrective action. Mobomo agrees that NOAA was, consistent with the solicitation, permitted to conduct exchanges with ResolveSoft following the best suited determination made as part the initial evaluation of quotations. However, the protester contends that once the agency agreed to undertake a new evaluation of quotations, “ResolveSoft was no longer the apparent awardee” and “[a]t that stage, the Agency was required to conduct leveling discussions with Mobomo to allow quotes to be evaluated on an equal basis.” Comments and Supp. Protest at 4. In this regard, Mobomo argues NOAA’s exchanges with ResolveSoft constituted discussions, and such “one-sided discussions tainted the reevaluation” because “NOAA permitted ResolveSoft to address weaknesses identified by the Agency and submit a revised quote without affording Mobomo the opportunity to do the same.” Id. at 6. See also Supp. Comments at 5-9. In response, the agency contends its decision to engage in exchanges with ResolveSoft was reasonable, or, in the alternative, Mobomo suffered no competitive prejudice as a result of NOAA’s failure to enter into exchanges with the protester. Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2-5.

Where an agency chooses to conduct exchanges with vendors in a FAR subpart 8.4 procurement, the exchanges, like all other aspects of such a procurement, must be fair and equitable; our Office has looked to the standards in FAR part 15 for guidance in making this determination. Aurotech, Inc., B‑413861.4, June 23, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 205 at 10. In this regard, FAR part 15 defines clarifications as “limited exchanges” that agencies may use to allow offerors to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (or in this case, quotations), or to resolve minor clerical mistakes. See FAR 15.306(a)(1),(2); Sky Solutions, LLC, B-421139.2, B‑421139.3, June 30, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 184 at 6. In contrast, under FAR part 15, discussions occur when an agency communicates with an offeror for the purpose of obtaining information essential to determining the acceptability of a proposal or quotation or provides the offeror with an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal or quotation. Innovative Mgmt. & Tech. Approaches, Inc., B-418823.3, B‑418823.4, Jan. 8, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 18 at 8.

We have previously resolved protests involving similarly worded solicitation provisions that allowed an agency to address any issues, including technical or price, only with the best-suited contractor, including in FAR subpart 8.4 procurements. See, e.g., A Square Grp., LLC, B-421792.5, Apr. 11, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 95 at 7 (denying protest ground alleging that the agency conducted unequal discussions pursuant to a similar solicitation provision in a FAR subpart 8.4 procurement); Sky Solutions, LLC, supra at 6-7 (same); see also VariQ-CV JV, LLC, B-418551, B‑418551.3, June 15, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 196 at 18-20 (denying a similar challenge in a FAR subpart 16.5 procurement). In those decisions, which were protests challenging an agency’s conduct of exchanges, we denied protest grounds alleging the agency conducted unequal discussions primarily on the basis that the agency’s actions in holding exchanges were consistent with the terms of the solicitation, while also noting that the procurements at issue were conducted under FAR procedures other than those found at FAR part 15. See Sky Solutions, LLC, supra at 7; VariQ-CV JV, LLC, supra at 20.

Mobomo’s protest presents a novel factual scenario. That is, rather than a challenge to the propriety of exchanges with ResolveSoft following the agency’s initial evaluation, the protester contends the agency was required to enter into exchanges with Mobomo as part of its corrective action, so to place the two firms on an equal competitive footing for the reevaluation. Here, on this record, we conclude that Mobomo cannot demonstrate it was competitively prejudiced by the agency’s conduct. See, e.g., Interfor US, Inc., B‑410622, Dec. 30, 2014, 2015 CPD ¶ 19 at 7 (“Competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest, and where none is shown or otherwise evident, we will not sustain a protest, even where a protester may have shown that an agency’s actions arguably were improper.”).

Several facts in the record lead us to this conclusion. First, we note that the parties are seemingly in agreement that the solicitation permitted the exchanges NOAA engaged in with ResolveSoft, as the apparent awardee, following the agency’s initial evaluation. See Supp. MOL at 2-4; Supp. Comments at 6-7. Second, the record demonstrates that ResolveSoft, as a result of those exchanges, made changes to its pricing volume, but did not make changes to its technical quotation. See AR, Tab 24, ADD at 10. Indeed, the agency’s technical reevaluation was unaffected as a result of those pricing changes. Third, the record demonstrates that both after the agency’s initial evaluation of quotations, and after its reevaluation following its decision to take corrective action in response to Mobomo’s initial protest, ResolveSoft was determined to be the best-suited vendor. Id. That is, the status quo ante prior to the agency’s undertaking corrective action remained in effect; ResolveSoft endured as the best-suited vendor even at a higher price. Finally, and as discussed more fully above, we find no basis to object to the agency’s reevaluation conclusions, to include NOAA’s evaluation of vendors’ technical quotations, or that ResolveSoft’s quotation was technically superior to Mobomo’s quotation.

Under these unique facts, Mobomo cannot reasonably demonstrate it was prejudiced by the agency’s conduct. Mobomo was not the best-suited vendor following the initial evaluation, nor was it the best-suited vendor following the agency’s reevaluation. Id. Thus, under the established terms of the solicitation, Mobomo was not eligible for exchanges with NOAA. See Sky Solutions, supra at 7 (denying protest on basis that agency, having determined the awardee was the best-suited vendor, reasonably entered into exchanges with the firm). Moreover, as the protester acknowledges, our Office’s decisions explain an agency may conduct exchanges solely with the best-suited vendor so long as the agency “reasonably and fairly” evaluates vendors’ quotations. Comments at 6 (citing S2 Analytical Sols., LLC, B‑422281.3, Dec. 20, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 312 at 3).

Again, as developed more fully, above, we find reasonable the agency’s underlying evaluation of quotations. And finally, ResolveSoft, through exchanges, made no alterations to its technical quotation, and the firm’s pricing changes had no impact on the underlying merits of the agency’s reevaluation or tradeoff decision. AR, Tab 24, ADD at 10. In sum: ResolveSoft’s initial quotation was evaluated as technically superior; the exchanges had no bearing on ResolveSoft’s technical quotation and were limited to a single issue, resulting in a net increase to the awardee’s proposed price; and ResolveSoft’s unchanged, initial non-price quotation was confirmed as technically superior following the agency’s reevaluation. On this specific record, we find no basis to sustain the protest allegation.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

 

---