Life Together Coaching, LLC

Decision

Matter of: Life Together Coaching, LLC

File: B-423989; B-423989.2; B-423989.3

Date: January 28, 2026

Jim Crothers for the protester.
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Major Bruce A. Nessler, Robert B. Neill, Esq., and Lieutenant Colonel Cali Y. Kim, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of quotations is denied where the agency evaluated quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, and the protester was not competitively prejudiced by any alleged disparate treatment between vendors.

DECISION

Life Together Coaching, LLC, a small business of Temple, Texas, protests the award of a contract to CenterPoint Strategic Business Services, LLC, a small business of Brunswick, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911RZ25QA038, issued by the Department of the Army for leadership training and coaching services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable and that the agency treated vendors unequally.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside on September 8, 2025, using the simplified acquisition procedures for commercial products and services set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 2, 33.[1] The agency sought the provision of group leadership training course sessions and individual coaching sessions for civilian employees at Fort Carson, Coloardo. RFQ at 5.

The Army contemplated the award of a fixed-priced contract for one 6-month period. Id. at 1, 20. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering the following factors: technical acceptability, schedule adherence, and price. Id. at 33. After evaluating quotations, the Army found CenterPoint to have the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision at 3. The agency made award to CenterPoint on September 23 for $31,350. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1.

The agency notified the protester of the award decision on September 30, 2025. AR, Tab 15, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. Life Together filed a timely protest with our Office on November 13.[2]

DISCUSSION

The protester alleges that no other vendor, including the awardee, can meet the technical requirements of the solicitation and that the agency treated the awardee and protester unequally.[3] Protest at 2-3; 2nd Supp. Protest at 7-8. The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated quotations and did not treat vendors unequally. MOL at 19‑21. We have reviewed all allegations and find no basis to sustain the protest.[4]

Interested Party

As a preliminary matter, we address whether Life Together is an interested party to protest. Prior to the agency report due date, the agency filed a request for dismissal, contending that the protester was not an interested party to challenge the technical evaluation of the awardee's quotation because award was made on an LPTA basis, and there were two intervening quotations that the protester did not challenge. Req. for Dismissal at 3.

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement. Our regulations implementing CICA define an interested party as an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). Determining whether a protester is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit of relief sought by the protester, and the protester's status in relation to the procurement. Criterion Sys., Inc., B-419749 et al., July 21, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 261 at 5. A protester is not an interested party if it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained. Id.

Generally, if a protester does not timely challenge an intervening quotation that would precede its own eligibility for award under the terms of a solicitation, the protester lacks the direct economic interest required to maintain a protest challenging the agency's evaluation of an awardee. See Panum Telcom, LLC, B-418202, Jan. 17, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 34 at 4 (dismissing protest for lack of interested party status because protester did not timely challenge evaluation of an intervening offer when protester learned of the offer from the agency report).

Here, the protester did not challenge the agency's evaluation of the intervening vendors' quotations in its initial protest filing. See generally Protest. There is no evidence in the record, however, that the protester knew about the intervening quotations prior to the agency's submission of its dismissal request. For example, the agency's notice of unsuccessful offeror did not mention any vendors other than the protester and the awardee. See generally AR, Tab 15, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror. After learning of the intervening quotations, the protester filed a supplemental protest, challenging the agency's evaluation of those quotations. 2nd Supp. Protest at 7-8.

On this record, we conclude that the protester timely challenged the agency's evaluation of the intervening quotations within ten days of when the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). If we were to sustain the protester's timely allegations that the agency should have found the awardee and intervening vendors' quotations technically unacceptable, and thus ineligible for award, that decision could result in the protester being in line for award. Accordingly, we decline to dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party. Criterion Sys., Inc., supra at 6.

Technical Evaluation

Turning to the merits of the protest, the gravamen of the protester's argument is that the awardee and intervening vendors failed to meet the solicitation's technical requirements. Protest at 2-3; 2nd Supp. Protest at 7-8. Specifically, the protester focuses on the solicitation requirement to implement a “success audit.” Protest at 2; 2nd Supp. Protest at 6-8.

Five Behaviors Training Methodology

The overall objective of this procurement was to obtain services that would provide “employees with adequate leadership skills to be effective leaders through the course of Executive Coaching, Training, and Advanced Leadership.” RFQ at 27. This training would primarily take place in monthly group coaching sessions. Id. at 18.

The agency sought to use the “Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team” leadership training methodology as the coaching format for the sessions. Specifically, the solicitation noted that “[t]he program leverages the ‘Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team' model--encompassing Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, and Achieving Results--to facilitate team growth and the consistent application of previously defined team commitment statements." Id. The solicitation also instructed that “[c]oaching will center around the five key behaviors of cohesive teams: Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, and Achieving Results” and that the workshops were meant to build a shared understanding and practical application of the Five Behaviors model. Id. at 19.

The contractor would be required to “provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform the Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team Workshop / Retreat for 23 team members as defined in this PWS [Performance Work Statement].” Id. at 18. Specific tasks included: (1) administering success audit reports to assess current team strengths and areas of improvement; (2) providing monthly coaching sessions to discuss the 5 behaviors of a cohesive team; (3) submitting coaching session summary emails to the agency; and (4) providing training materials, such as workbooks and presentations for the course. Id.at 19.

Success Audit Requirement

The protester contends that the solicitation requires vendors to implement a “success audit” to assess team strengths and areas of improvement and, according to the protester, the reference to the “success audit” is a reference to a proprietary tool owned by Life Together. Protest at 2. Therefore, in the protester's view, no vendor other than Life Together could meet the solicitation requirement of administering the success audit. Id. The agency responds that the phrase “success audit” is common nomenclature and that the requirement does not reference any proprietary tool.[5] MOL at 3-5.

The evaluation of quotations is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. JMark Servs., Inc., B-417331.2, July 22, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 277 at 6. In reviewing a protest of an agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations, it is not our role to reevaluate the quotations; rather, our Office will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. Id. Further, where a protester and agency disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions; to be reasonable, and therefore, valid, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner. SSI Tech., Inc., B-417299, Apr. 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 136 at 4. Here, our review of the record, as explained below, leads us to conclude that the agency's reading of the solicitation was the only reasonable interpretation.

The solicitation states:

To ensure a targeted and effective development program, the Vendor will conduct a "Success Audit." This comprehensive assessment will identify current strengths and areas for improvement, fostering clarity and alignment around meaningful team goals. The audit will deliver a phased roadmap with 30-, 60-, and 90-day milestones to drive momentum, accountability, and measurable progress. In addition, individual needs assessments will be conducted to support individual growth and maximize contributions to team success.

RFQ at 18. As part of the contractor's initial assessment of team dynamics, the RFQ required the contractor to prepare a success audit that each participant would complete online. Id. at 19. The contractor would then review the results from those audits to “inform coaching strategies and personalize the [coaching] experience.” Id. For example, results from the audit would be used to develop “phased roadmaps with 30-, 60-, and 90-day milestones to drive momentum, accountability, and measurable progress.” Id.

The Army asserts that the term “success audit,” at the time the requirement was solicited, is understood “as common nomenclature used to describe the team assessment component of the Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team framework, a way for the trainer to meaningfully frame and tailor the Five Behaviors curriculum.” MOL at 5; COS at 3. This usage, the contracting officer argues, is also borne out by the use of the common nomenclature in quotations received from other vendors responding to the RFQ. COS at 3; MOL at 10. According to the Army, the agency simply placed quotation marks around the phrase in the solicitation to refer to the entire success audit process in shorthand. MOL at 19; COS at 4.

Our review of the solicitation finds nothing objectionable in this regard. Read as a whole, the RFQ describes the success audit as a general process the agency sought the contractor to follow. Specifically, the solicitation described the success audit as a process in which team members completed online assessments, the contractor created reports from those assessments, and the contractor reviewed those reports to assess team strengths and areas for growth. RFQ at 18-19. The audit would inform instructors on how to focus and personalize training sessions for each of the five team behaviors based on the team members' initial feedback. Id.

Contrary to the protester's assertion, there is no language in the solicitation that suggests the term “success audit” referenced a proprietary tool or process. For instance, nothing in the RFQ's description of the success audit process required vendors to use specific software to initiate online assessments, or a specific program to create the reports that would inform the training program structure. Thus, based on the language of the solicitation, we have no basis to conclude that term “success audit” referred to the protester's proprietary tool.

Moreover, the evaluation record supports the agency's findings that the awardee and intervening vendors did meet the requirement to quote a success audit strategy. In evaluating quotations for technical capability, the agency was required to determine whether vendors “[d]emonstrated technical ability (PWS Compliance).” RFQ at 17. As noted above, one of the PWS task required vendors to “conduct a ‘Success Audit.'” Id. at 18. Here, the agency reasonably reviewed all quotations for compliance with PWS requirements and found the awardee and intervening vendors to be technically acceptable under the technical capability evaluation factor. AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation at 2. As such, we find no basis to object to the agency's evaluation of quotations. JMark Servs., Inc., supra at 8 (finding agency's evaluation reasonable where solicitation required evaluating quotations on a pass/fail basis, and record showed that awardee complied with solicitation requirements). Therefore, we find no merit to this allegation.[6]

Unequal Treatment

Next, the protester speculates that the agency treated the awardee and protester unequally by, in its view, assessing technical strengths to the awardee's quotation that should have also been granted to the protester's quotation. Protest at 3. The solicitation, however, simply did not contemplate the assessment of technical strengths and weaknesses. See generally RFQ. Rather, the solicitation advised award would be made on an LPTA basis, and that a quotation would be deemed “technically acceptable” where it demonstrated the vendor's ability to perform the PWS requirements, and a quotation would be deemed “technically unacceptable” where a vendor did not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation. RFQ at 33.

Here, the record shows that the agency rated both the protester and awardee's technical capabilities as technically acceptable for meeting the solicitation requirements. AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation at 2. Thus, even if we agreed with the protester that the agency was required and failed to assess strengths to the protester's quotation--which we do not--we find that the protester cannot demonstrate any competitive prejudice, because any reevaluation of the protester's technical approach would not result in a technical rating better than “technically acceptable.” In an LPTA source selection, tradeoffs are not permitted. FAR 15.101-2(b)(2). Offers are “evaluated for acceptability but not ranked” using non-price factors. FAR 15.101-2(b)(3). Thus, where offers are found to be “technically acceptable,” price is the determinative factor. See, e.g., Vantex Serv. Corp., B-266199, Jan. 30, 1996, 1996 CPD ¶ 29 at 3.

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest; where the protester fails to demonstrate that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award, there is no basis for finding prejudice, and our Office will not sustain the protest, even if deficiencies in the procurement are found. Western Metal Supply, Inc., B-421919, Nov. 20, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 264 at 4.

Here, Life Together's competitive standing would not change as a result of any reevaluation of technical quotations because the awardee's technically acceptable quotation would still have been selected over the protester's higher-priced, technically acceptable quotation under the LPTA source selection methodology. Thus, on this basis, we find no possibility of competitive prejudice, and therefore, there is no basis to sustain the protest allegation.[7] Export 220Volt, Inc., B-422216, Feb. 27, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 59 at 7.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel