TechGlobal, Inc.

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: TechGlobal, Inc.

File: B-424287; B-424287.2

Date: June 1, 2026

Heather B. Mims, Esq., and David R. Warner, Esq., Warner PLLC, for the protester.
Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Zachary D. Prince, Esq., and John M. Tanner, Esq., Haynes and Boone LLP, for Reston Consulting Group, Inc., the intervenor.
Andrew Parker Frank, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and the selection of the successful vendor's higher-rated and higher-priced quotation was consistent with the solicitation's selection criteria.

DECISION

TechGlobal, Inc, a women-owned small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Reston Consulting Group, Inc. (RCG), a women-owned small business of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1305M226Q0013, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for information technology (IT) support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations under the solicitation's technical approach factor, as well as the agency's source selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The instant RFQ sought a contractor to provide NOAA's National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey (OCS) with comprehensive IT support services, including IT administration and help desk support, IT security support, system and database administration, and cloud service integration and maintenance. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5.[1] OCS is the nation's nautical chart maker, promoting safe navigation by collecting, managing, and compiling data and information necessary to maintain the national suite of electronic navigational charts. Id. at 4.

On January 15, 2026, NOAA issued the RFQ as a set aside for women-owned small businesses under the General Services Administration's (GSA) multiple award schedule special item number 54151S, IT professional services, using Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul subpart 8.4[2] and GSA Acquisition Regulation subpart 538.71 procedures. AR, Tab 1, RFQ at 2; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2; AR, Tab 12, Business Case Memorandum at 4. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFQ at 19.

The RFQ specified that the agency would issue a task order to the “responsible vendor whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.” Id. at 13. For the evaluation, the solicitation indicated that the agency would evaluate quotations based on two factors: technical approach[3] and price, with the technical approach factor “significantly more important than price.” Id. The RFQ also stated that the agency would not select a quotation with a significantly higher price to achieve slightly superior performance capability, and price would become more important as quotations approached equality under the nonprice factors. Id.

For the technical approach factor, the RFQ instructed vendors to propose a technical approach that “clearly demonstrated their understanding” of eight areas: (1) IT administration and help desk support; (2) IT security implementation; (3) system administration; (4) database administration and optimization; (5) cloud engineering and administration support; (6) IT and business services; (7) quality assurance and control measures and procedures; and (8) staffing and management plan. Id. at 11-12. The agency would then evaluate each vendor's technical approach quotation “to determine the Government's confidence of the [vendor's] technical understanding and proposed approach in response to the evaluation criteria.” Id. at 13. For the price factor, the RFQ specified that the total evaluated price would be the sum of the base period and all option periods, noting that “[t]he degree of importance of the pricing will increase commensurate with the degree of equality among the [technical approach] factors.” Id. at 14

The agency received three timely quotations, including quotations from TechGlobal and RCG. COS at 6. In evaluating the protester's quotation under the technical approach factor, the agency's technical evaluation team (TET) assigned TechGlobal a rating of “High Confidence,” identifying four elements in TechGlobal's quotation that increased confidence and none that decreased confidence. AR, Tab 11, TET Report at 7. The results of the evaluation of TechGlobal's and RCG's quotations were as follows:

	Technical Approach	Total Evaluated Price
TechGlobal	High Confidence	$4,214,129
RCG	High End of High Confidence	$4,884,604

AR, Tab 12, Business Case Memorandum at 11.

As relevant here, after concluding its evaluation of quotations, the TET recommended award to RCG because RCG's technical approach offered “a higher technical superiority due to their strong and extensive understanding and knowledge with the use of Gemini Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a detailed approach to keep the cloud strategic plan updated.” Id. In the trade-off analysis, the contracting officer determined that RCG's quotation offered the best value to the government based on these “two technically superior elements,” which “support and justify the higher quoted price[.]” Id. at 13. The contracting officer further explained:

AI and cloud management are major United States, Department of Commerce, and NOAA initiatives currently with specific ongoing mission goals that are required to be implemented within the next year. The inclusion and use of Gemini AI and a detailed approach to keep the cloud strategic plan updated will not only benefit the Government in the short term, but will also set the Government up for long term IT success and modernization. RCG's technical superiority presents the best value to the Government and is worth paying a price premium.

Id.

On February 20, the agency notified TechGlobal that its quotation was not selected and identified RCG as the awardee. COS at 11. After TechGlobal requested and received a brief explanation of award, it filed this protest.

DISCUSSION

TechGlobal challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and the agency's selection of RCG's quotation as the best overall value. The protester first contends that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria when highlighting RCG's intended use of an AI tool as a key discriminator in RCG's quotation. TechGlobal also alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated TechGlobal's quotation under the technical approach factor. Finally, TechGlobal argues that the agency's best-value tradeoff decision was flawed and inconsistent with the solicitation criteria. While we do not specifically address every argument raised throughout the course of the protest, we have fully considered all of them and find that none provides a basis on which to sustain the protest.[4]

At the outset, we note that where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition for the issuance of an order, 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. Platinum Bus. Servs., LLC, B-424276, B-424276.2, May 4, 2026, at 6. The evaluation of vendors' technical quotations is a matter within the agency's discretion, and GAO will not perform its own technical evaluation, or substitute its judgment for that of the procuring agency. Appsential, LLC, B-419046.2 et al., Jan. 22, 2021, at 10. Rather, our Office will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgments were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Platinum Bus. Servs., LLC, supra. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgments, without more, does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. Id.

Unstated Evaluation Criteria

TechGlobal alleges that a key discriminator NOAA identified in RCG's quotation was unreasonable and the product of unstated evaluation criteria. Comments & Supp. Protest at 9-11. Specifically, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably identified RCG's “inclusion and use of Gemini AI” as a key discriminator that demonstrated the technical superiority of RCG's quotation. Id. at 10-11. The protester argues further that because the RFQ “did not even mention the words artificial intelligence or AI, or much less contemplate its usage, at least half of the [a]gency's justification for a higher priced [quotation] is unreasonable.” Id. at 11. In sum, TechGlobal contends that the RFQ should have notified vendors that NOAA intended to give greater weight to a quotation that draws on the use of AI tools--but because the solicitation did not, the agency's consideration of such was improper. Id. at 12.

NOAA responds that its evaluation of RCG's intended use of an AI tool was logically encompassed within the RFQ's stated evaluation criteria. Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5-8. The agency states that it cited RCG's proposed use of the Gemini AI tool as increasing confidence because, in the agency's assessment, this tool would “continue strengthening Help Desk operations by updating Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)[.]” Id. at 5-6 (citing AR, Tab 11, TET Report at 7). Specifically, the proposed use of an AI tool increased NOAA's confidence in RCG's ability to perform PWS task 2.1, “IT Administration / Help Desk Support,” because the tool would facilitate “[a]ccurate and current [SOPs]” through continuous updates. AR, Tab 13, Supp. Decl. of TET Chairperson at 3. The agency contends that it reasonably identified this benefit as part of RCG's technical approach to develop and maintain agency SOP documentation--a task explicitly required by the solicitation. Supp. MOL at 6.

Where a protester challenges the evaluation as unfairly utilizing unstated evaluation criteria, our Office will assess whether the solicitation reasonably informs vendors of the basis for the evaluation. Platinum Bus. Servs., LLC, supra at 9. Although agencies are required to identify in a solicitation all major evaluation factors, agencies are not required to specifically identify each and every element an agency might consider during an evaluation. Id.; Trailboss Enters., Inc., B-419209, Dec. 23, 2020, at 6. Rather, agencies may properly evaluate a quotation based on considerations not expressly stated in the RFQ where those considerations are reasonably and logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria and where there is a clear nexus between the stated and unstated criteria. Cotton & Co., LLP, B-418380.4, Mar. 10, 2021, at 5.

Here, we deny this protest ground because we find a clear nexus between the evaluation criteria and NOAA's consideration of RCG's intended use of an AI tool. As noted above, the solicitation specified that NOAA would evaluate vendors' understanding and proposed approach in eight separate technical areas, one of which was “IT Administration / Help Desk Support” under PWS paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3. RFQ at 10-11, 13. One required task identified in PWS paragraph 2.1 was: “[d]evelop and maintain OCS [SOP] documentation.” AR, Tab 1a, PWS at 8. The evaluation record indicates the agency evaluated RCG's intended use of an AI tool for this purpose as a quotation feature that exceeded the requirements of the PWS. AR, Tab 11, TET Report at 8. In this regard, NOAA explains that RCG's incorporation of an AI-enabled tool gave the agency increased confidence that SOPs would be kept accurate and current, which the agency viewed as “essential” to help desk operations:

When SOPs fall out of date, it introduces risk across the board, from compliance gaps and inconsistent service delivery to personnel changes that become far more disruptive than they need to be. Gemini AI can be used to help keep SOPs reviewed and updated on a rolling basis, which gave the TET confidence that procedural documentation will stay accurate and audit-ready throughout the contract, without piling more work onto an already busy team.

AR, Tab 13, Supp. Decl. of TET Chair at 3.

We see nothing objectionable about the agency's evaluation of RCG's quotation.[5] To the extent that NOAA favorably evaluated RCG's intended use of an AI-enabled tool as enhancing RCG's performance of the stated RFQ requirements, such consideration reflects the agency's assessment of the quality and effectiveness of RCG's proposed approach‑-not the application of an unstated evaluation criterion.

Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that NOAA assigned disproportionate weight to the use of an AI tool in isolation--disconnected from stated RFQ requirements. Instead, the record reflects that the proposed AI tool increased NOAA's confidence that RCG would fulfill the PWS task requirement of developing and maintaining help desk SOPs. AR, Tab 11, TET Report at 8; AR, Tab 13, Supp. Decl. of TET Chair at 3. On this record, we find that NOAA's evaluation of RCG's intended use of an AI-enabled tool to update agency SOPs was reasonably related to, and logically encompassed within, the RFQ's stated evaluation criteria.[6] This allegation is denied.

Technical Approach Evaluation

The protester also alleges that NOAA misevaluated TechGlobal's quotation under the technical approach factor. In this regard, the protester argues that although the agency identified multiple aspects of TechGlobal's quotation that increased the agency's confidence, “the [a]gency should have noted additional factors that were strengths[.]” Protest at 7. The protester then identifies a single example of agency error: the agency's failure to assign a strength for TechGlobal's staffing and management plan. Id. Specifically, TechGlobal argues that the agency should have recognized TechGlobal's commitment to “retention of 100 [percent] of performing and qualified incumbent staff,” supported by “signed commitment letters” from TechGlobal staff members and TechGlobal's “100 [percent]” incumbent staff retention rate on prior NOAA IT contracts. Id. (citing AR, Tab 5, TechGlobal Quotation at 11). The protester contends that because the solicitation specifically requested information about incumbent staff retention, the agency should have recognized a strength in TechGlobal's quotation for its historical retention rate and its commitment to achieve the maximum possible retention percentage. Id.

An agency's judgment that the features identified in a proposal or quotation do not significantly exceed the requirements of the solicitation or provide advantages to the government--and thus do not warrant the assessment of unique strengths--is a matter largely within the agency's discretion. Bluehawk, LLC, B-421201; B-421201.2, Jan. 18, 2023, at 5. This is particularly true where a protester simply disagrees with the agency's assessment of the weight or significance of features in proposals or quotations. Reston Consulting Grp., Inc., B‑423493, et al., Aug. 1, 2025, at 4. Our Office will not disturb an agency's evaluation of technical quotations unless the protester demonstrates the evaluation is unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Tuknik Gov't Servs., LLC, B‑422862.2, Dec. 30, 2024, at 4. In addition, an agency is not required to document every single aspect of its evaluation or explain why a quotation did not receive a strength for a particular feature. 22nd Century Techs. Inc., B‑420510, B-420510.2, May 4, 2022, at 9.

Here, we see no basis to question the agency's evaluation of TechGlobal's quotation. As an initial matter, the protester does not identify any requirement in the solicitation or evaluation criterion obligating the agency to connect incumbent employee retention with a more favorable rating under the technical approach factor. As noted above, the solicitation explained that the agency would evaluate a vendor's technical approach to determine the agency's “confidence of the [vendor's] technical understanding and proposed approach[.]” RFQ at 12. Based on our review of the record, the agency adequately documented its technical evaluation judgments concerning the specific elements of TechGlobal's quotation that the agency viewed as increasing confidence in TechGlobal's technical understanding and proposed approach. AR, Tab 11, TET Report at 7. The record likewise reflects NOAA's consideration of TechGlobal's incumbent employee retention commitment and historical retention percentage--and the agency's determination that these aspects of TechGlobal's technical quotation did not increase or decrease the agency's confidence in TechGlobal's technical approach. AR, Tab 8, Decl. of TET Chairperson at 1-2.

TechGlobal fails to rebut the agency's rationale or persuasively explain why the solicitation's evaluation criteria obligated the agency to assign greater confidence to a quotation that represented that it would achieve 100 percent incumbent employee retention.[7] Beyond asserting that the agency was obligated to assign TechGlobal's staffing and management plan a “strength,” the protester fails to provide any meaningful explanation for how TechGlobal's commitments concerning incumbent staff retention demonstrate TechGlobal's technical understanding and proposed approach. More is required to sustain this protest. See 22nd Century Techs., Inc., supra at 8 (denying allegation that quotation was entitled to strengths because protester “did not consistently explain in what way the quotation features actually exceeded the requirements to the agency's benefit[]”). In sum, the protester's arguments express disagreement with the agency's evaluation of TechGlobal's quotation, which does not demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. Id. Accordingly, we deny this allegation.[8]

Best-Value Tradeoff

Finally, TechGlobal argues that the agency's best-value determination was flawed and inconsistent with the solicitation. In raising this challenge, the protester makes two arguments--neither of which provide a basis to sustain TechGlobal's protest.

First, TechGlobal argues that the agency's best-value determination and award decision was “necessarily flawed as it was premised on multiple errors throughout the procurement process,” including a faulty evaluation of TechGlobal's quotation and the application of unstated evaluation criteria. Comments & Supp. Protest at 7-8. This allegation is based on the protester's challenges to NOAA's evaluation of quotations . As discussed above, we find no basis to object to NOAA's evaluation. Accordingly, we dismiss this argument because it does not establish an independent basis of protest. See, e.g., Chugach Logistics-Facility Servs. JV, LLC, B-421351, Mar. 21, 2023, at 11.

Second, TechGlobal contends that the agency's best-value decision failed to follow the solicitation criteria. In this regard, TechGlobal notes that the solicitation specified that the agency would “not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior performance capability.” Comments & Supp. Protest at 8 (citing RFQ at 13). TechGlobal argues that the agency “improperly increased the importance” of two discriminators in RCG's quotation (the use of Gemini AI and RCG's detailed approach to keep its cloud strategic plan updated), although these two quotation aspects would “objectively” achieve only slightly superior performance capability given the overall similarities and strengths in the vendors' respective quotations. Id.

Where, as here, a procurement conducted pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4 provides for the issuance of a task order on a best-value basis, it is the function of the source selection authority to perform a price/technical tradeoff, that is, to determine whether one quotation's technical superiority is worth its higher price. WHR Group, Inc., B-420776, B-420776.2, Aug. 30, 2022, at 14-15. In a best-value procurement, particularly where technical factors are more important than price, an agency may ultimately focus on a particular discriminator in deciding not to select the low-priced vendor. Amyx, Inc., B‑410623, B-410623.2, Jan. 16, 2015, at 17. Further, an agency may select the higher-rated, higher-priced quotation as reflecting the best value to the agency where that decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced quotation outweighs the price difference. See Professional Analysis, Inc., B-419239, B-419239.2, Jan. 8, 2021, at 9.

The record demonstrates that the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. As an initial matter, we see no support for the premise underlying TechGlobal's argument that the agency viewed the two quotations as “effectively equivalent[.]” See Comments & Supp. Protest at 8. The record also fails to support the protester's assertion that the agency “improperly increased the importance” of the above two elements of RCG's quotation. See id. Instead, the agency determined that RCG's “inclusion and use of Gemini AI and a detailed approach to keep the cloud strategic plan updated” were “two technically superior elements” of RCG's quotation “worth paying a price premium.” AR, Tab 12, Business Case Memorandum at 13. We see no basis to question the agency's judgment that these two quotation elements showcase RCG's technical superiority and justify paying a higher price. See Amyx, Inc., supra at 17.

We likewise find no support for TechGlobal's contention that these discriminators “objectively” lack value. To the contrary, the protester's challenge to the agency's best-value tradeoff decision amounts to disagreement with the agency's judgment, which does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. See, e.g., Professional Analysis, Inc., supra at 9 (denying protest of best-value tradeoff decision where the agency reasonably concluded that the benefits in the awardee's quotation justified the payment of a higher price). Accordingly, we deny the protester's challenge because the agency's best-value determination and selection decision were based on a reasonable evaluation of both quotations that was consistent with the RFQ criteria. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., B‑419599, B-419599.2, June 1, 2021, at 9.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---