DexteriTech Solutions, LLC

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: DexteriTech Solutions, LLC

File: B-424358; B-424358.2

Date: June 16, 2026

Matthew J. Michaels, Esq., and Scott E. Pickens, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg LLP, for the protester.
William M. Jack, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., and Brian S. Yu, Esq., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, for Client First Technologies, Inc., the intervenor.
Mellany Alio, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal under the technical factor is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

2. Protest challenging the awardee's ability to meet the solicitation's requirements based on the awardee's lower proposed price is dismissed where the solicitation did not contemplate a price realism analysis.

DECISION

DexteriTech Solutions, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Gaithersburg, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Client First Technologies, Inc., an SDVOSB of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) T4NG-0760, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for administrative and operational support services for VA information technology systems and applications. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its task execution plan under the technical factor and argues that the agency failed to recognize risk in the awardee's task execution plan based on the awardee's lower price.

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2026, the VA issued the solicitation as an SDVOSB set-aside to holders of its Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RTEP at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a firm-fixed-price task order with a 9-month base period of performance, four 12‑month option periods, and three optional tasks. AR, Tab 6, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation sought an offeror to provide administrative and operational support for VA messaging, collaboration, authentication, and configuration products and environments, such as Microsoft 365, OneDrive, and Microsoft Teams. Id. at 4.

The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors: technical, past performance, and price. RTEP at 3. The solicitation advised that the technical factor is “significantly more important” than price, which is “slightly more important” than the past performance factor. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, are “significantly more important” than price. Id.

Under the technical factor, the agency would consider the offeror's (1) understanding of the problem and (2) feasibility of approach. Id. at 3-4. Regarding understanding of the problem, the solicitation advised that the agency would evaluate each task execution plan to “determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and . . . the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.” Id. at 3. Regarding the feasibility of approach, proposals would be evaluated to “determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable” and to determine “the level of confidence provided . . . with respect to the Offeror's methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely manner.” Id. at 4.

Under the technical factor, the agency would assign task execution plans a rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, susceptible to being made acceptable, or unacceptable. AR, Tab 4, Task Order Evaluation Plan at 4.[1] As relevant here, a rating of acceptable indicated that the task execution plan “at least meets all of the [] requirements, demonstrates at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible (moderate to high risk).” Id.

Under the price factor, the solicitation advised that the agency would “evaluate price by adding the total of all line item prices” and would “verify the Offeror's calculation of the total proposed price.” RTEP at 4.

By the February 5 due date, the agency received task execution plans from ten offerors. COS at 1; AR, Tab 8, RTEP Amendments at 9.[2] The evaluation results for DexteriTech and Client First were as follows:

AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2; AR, Tab 12, Debriefing Slides at 14.

With regard to DexteriTech's technical approach, the agency did not identify any strengths or weaknesses. AR, Tab 10, DexteriTech Technical Evaluation at 2. The agency noted various aspects of the protester's task execution plan, such as DexteriTech's approach to provide help desk support assistance and monitor queues for service tickets, its management methodology, its prioritization of staffing incumbent personnel to ensure continuity, and the fact that its proposed team members held relevant certifications. Id. at 1-2. After reviewing “the entire technical volume,” the agency determined that DexteriTech's task execution plan “demonstrated at least a minimal understanding of the problems,” was “at least minimally feasible,” and was “considered moderate to high risk[.]” Id. at 2-3. In conducting its tradeoff, the agency concluded that Client First's “significantly superior technical proposal” and “significantly lower price” represented a better value to the agency than DexteriTech's task execution plan and presented “the best overall value” to the agency, considering all offerors. AR, Tab 11, SSDD at 14, 18.

On March 5, the agency notified the protester that it was not selected for award. COS at 2. The protester requested a debriefing, which the agency provided on March 19. AR, Tab 12, Debriefing Slides at 1. On March 24, this protest followed.[4]

DECISION

The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its task execution plan under the technical factor, arguing that the agency failed to evaluate technical feasibility and inadequately documented the assessment. Protest at 7-9; Supp. Protest at 6-8. DexteriTech also asserts that the agency failed to recognize risk in the awardee's task execution plan and bases this assertion on Client First's lower price. Protest at 9‑10. After reviewing the record, we find no basis to sustain the protest.[5]

Technical Factor

First, the protester argues that the agency failed to properly evaluate the technical feasibility of its task execution plan by failing to conduct a risk assessment. The protester references the technical adjectival rating definitions in the agency's task order evaluation plan to assert that assessing technical feasibility was “fundamentally an assessment of risk” and to contend that the agency did not provide a basis for its finding that the protester's task execution plan presented “moderate to high” risk. Supp. Protest at 7; Protest at 7.

More specifically, DexteriTech argues that the agency's contemporaneous documentation concerning the protester's technical approach “is simply devoid of any indication” that the agency considered feasibility of approach, apart from the “conclusory statement that [DexteriTech's] proposal was ‘at least minimally feasible[.]'” Comments at 4 (quoting AR, Tab 10, DexteriTech Technical Evaluation at 2). The protester asserts that the agency could not reasonably find its task execution plan to be minimally feasible and to present moderate-to-high risk without identifying a significant weakness or weakness because, in the protester's view, “higher risk is the result of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.” Id. at 7, Protest at 2. In sum, the protester argues that without a moderate-to-high risk rating, its task execution plan would have received a higher technical score, which “likely would have been sufficient for [DexteriTech] to be awarded the contract.” Protest at 9.

The agency responds that its technical evaluation of DexteriTech's task execution plan was properly documented and in accordance with the solicitation criteria. MOL at 4. The VA asserts that its documented contemporaneous evaluation shows that the evaluators considered various elements of the protester's proposed technical approach and concluded that the solicitation's requirements had been “adequately addressed,” resulting in a rating of acceptable. COS at 5 (quoting AR, Tab 10, DexteriTech Technical Evaluation at 2). The agency contends that it is not required to document determinations of adequacy or to otherwise explain why certain aspects of DexteriTech's task execution plan did not receive strengths or weaknesses. MOL at 6.

The VA also asserts that the solicitation did not contemplate a separate risk assessment, and “any proposal with the adjectival rating of Acceptable is considered to have moderate to high risk.” Id. at 4. Pointing to the internal guidance in the task order evaluation plan, the agency notes that the adjectival definition of “[a]cceptable” contains a “moderate to high risk” parenthetical simply to provide “additional context and characterization” of task execution plans rated as acceptable. Id. In other words, the VA argues that “once the evaluators determined that a proposal at least met all of the requirements, demonstrated at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible, . . . then the proposal is inherently considered to be moderate to high risk.” Id. at 4-5. In sum, the agency asserts that it reasonably determined the protester's task execution plan met the definition of acceptable and that no further risk assessment was required. Id. at 2-3.

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency's discretion. CivitasDX, LLC, B-423968, B‑423968.2, Feb. 5, 2026, at 5. We will review the record to determine whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Id. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. Veterans EZ Info, Inc., B-422107, B-422107.2, Jan. 11, 2024, at 4. Further, an agency is not required to document all determinations of adequacy or explain why a proposal did not receive a strength, weakness, or deficiency for a particular item. Cognosante MVH, LLC, B-418986 et al., Nov. 13, 2020, at 8.

Here, we find no basis to object to the agency's evaluation. Under the technical factor, the solicitation provided for the agency to consider an offeror's understanding of the problem and feasibility of approach. RTEP at 3-4. The evaluation plan defined an acceptable task execution plan as one that “at least meets all of the [] requirements, demonstrates at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible (moderate to high risk).” AR, Tab 4, Task Order Evaluation Plan at 4.

The record shows that the agency did consider various aspects of the protester's technical approach, such as DexteriTech's plan to provide help desk support assistance and monitor queues for help desk service tickets; the certifications of DexteriTech's proposed team members and the relevancy of those certifications; and DexteriTech's management methodology, which included bi-weekly work plans and recurring status reports. AR, Tab 10, DexteriTech Technical Evaluation at 1-2. The agency's contemporaneous documentation shows that it reviewed “the entire technical volume,” identified no strengths or weaknesses, and determined that DexteriTech “adequately addressed” the solicitation's requirements and presented an “at least minimally feasible” approach with “at least a minimal understanding of the [solicitation's] problems.” Id. at 2-3. In other words, the record supports the agency's assertion that it evaluated DexteriTech's task execution plan for understanding of the problem and feasibility of approach, in accordance with the solicitation, and that it adequately documented that evaluation. The fact that the agency found the protester's task execution plan to be adequate and did not explain why the evaluators did not identify any strengths or weaknesses does not render the agency's evaluation unreasonable. See AR, Tab 10, DexteriTech Technical Evaluation at 2; Cognosante MVH, LLC, supra.

We also reject the protester's assertion that the agency “cannot assess [DexteriTech] as ‘moderate to high risk' or the equivalent without identifying a weakness in the proposal, because higher risk is the result of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.” See Comments at 7. As previously stated, the evaluation plan defines an acceptable task execution plan as one that “at least meets all of the [] requirements, demonstrates at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible (moderate to high risk).” AR, Tab 4, Task Order Evaluation Plan at 4. That definition does not mention weaknesses or significant weaknesses, and the solicitation does not otherwise require that the agency identify a weakness or significant weakness in a task execution plan for it to be rated as acceptable. See generally RTEP.

Relatedly, we find reasonable the agency's claim that the solicitation did not contemplate a separate risk assessment, and that the parenthetical use of the words “moderate to high risk” in the evaluation plan's definition of “[a]cceptable” correlates with and describes the preceding portion of the definition. See MOL at 4. In other words, we agree with the agency's position that an acceptable task execution plan is a task execution plan with “moderate to high risk”; and a task execution plan with moderate to high risk is acceptable as it meets the solicitation requirements, demonstrates at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible. See AR, Tab 4, Task Order Evaluation Plan at 4.

Moreover, the protester has not identified language in the solicitation requiring the agency to conduct a separate risk analysis. Notably, the solicitation does not mention risk in its evaluation criteria; the only mention of risk exists in the evaluation plan's adjectival rating definitions. See AR, Tab 4, Task Order Evaluation Plan at 4; see generally RTEP. Evaluation plans and ratings definitions included in those plans are recognized as internal agency instructions, not disclosed to offerors in the solicitation, and therefore do not give outside parties any rights. See DynCorp Int'l, Inc., B‑419100, B-419100.2, Dec. 16, 2020, at 14 n.12; Mandex, Inc.; Tero Tek Int'l, Inc., B-241759 et al., Mar. 5, 1991, at 7. Accordingly, DexteriTech's argument based on the definition of the adjectival ratings in the task order evaluation plan provides us with no basis to sustain this protest.

In conclusion, the protester has not shown that the agency's evaluation of its task execution plan under the technical factor was unreasonable or inadequately documented. This protest ground is denied.

Evaluation of Awardee's Task Execution Plan

Finally, the protester argues that the agency failed to “assess the high-risk nature” of Client First's task execution plan. Protest at 9. DexteriTech asserts that the awardee's low price, in comparison to its own proposed price, makes it “clear” that Client First “has understaffed this task order or has proposed unqualified staff demonstrating risk.” Id. The protester claims that this argument is not a demand that the agency conduct a price realism analysis; rather, DexteriTech styles it as an argument that the agency disparately evaluated DexteriTech's and Client First's task execution plans. Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 3-4; Protest at 10.

The agency responds that the protester's assertions are speculative and requests dismissal of this argument for failure to state a valid basis for protest. The VA asserts that DexteriTech “has no insight into the reason for the cost differential” between its task execution plan and the awardee's and has not set forth sufficient facts to support its challenge to the agency's evaluation. Req. for Dismissal at 3. The agency also contends that the protester's challenge amounts “to a veiled demand that [the] VA conduct a price realism analysis on the firm fixed price [] task order.” Id. at 4. The agency argues that because the solicitation did not require a price realism analysis, the VA was not required to conduct a price realism analysis. Id. at 4-5.

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of protest and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient. 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4), (f).  Arguments that an agency did not perform an appropriate price analysis to determine whether prices are too low, such that there may be a risk of poor performance, concern price realism. Hendall, Inc., B-417513.3, B-417513.4, Feb. 24, 2020, at 8. Absent a provision requiring an agency to undertake a price realism evaluation, there is nothing objectionable in an offeror's proposal of low, or even below-cost, prices. AIX Tech, LLC, B-423417 et al., June 11, 2025, at 6. Moreover, absent a solicitation provision advising offerors of a price realism analysis, agencies are neither required nor permitted to conduct such an analysis in awarding a fixed-price task order. See Hendall, Inc., supra.

Here, we reject the protester's assertion that it is focusing on disparate treatment and not arguing for a price realism analysis. See Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 3-4. To prevail on an allegation of disparate treatment, a protester must show that the agency unreasonably failed to credit its quotation, or, as here, its task execution plan, for aspects that were substantively indistinguishable from, or nearly identical to, those contained in other quotations. See Cognosante MVH, LLC, supra at 5; Coastal Mgmt. Solutions, B-423344.3, Feb. 24, 2026, at 7; CAE USA, Inc., B‑421550 et al., June 22, 2023, at 9. While DexteriTech complains that it does not have access to the awardee's task execution plan, the protester has not shown--and has not provided any credible evidence to show‑-that its plan and the awardee's are substantially indistinguishable from, or nearly identical to, each other. Accordingly, the protester has not made the requisite showing that the agency treated the two task execution plans unequally and fails to establish that the differences in ratings do not stem from differences in the plans.

Further, the protester's assertion that Client First's lower price means the awardee “has understaffed this task order or has proposed unqualified staff demonstrating risk” concerns price realism. Protest at 9; see Hendall, Inc., supra. In other words, DexteriTech is effectively arguing that the VA should have performed a price realism analysis. The solicitation here contemplated the issuance of a firm-fixed-price task order. PWS at 5. Under the price factor, the RTEP did not provide for a price realism analysis. See RTEP at 4. Accordingly, the protester's assertion that the agency failed to perform a price realism analysis, where no such analysis was required or permitted, does not state a valid basis for protest. See Hendall, Inc., supra; 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(f). In short, the protester has not provided credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester's claim of improper agency action. Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B‑423546, B-423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, at 4. Accordingly, we dismiss this protest ground.

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel