Jazz Solutions, Inc.

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

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

Decision

Matter of: Jazz Solutions, Inc.

File: B-424440; B-424440.2

Date: July 29, 2026

Joshua B. Duvall, Esq., Duvy Law, LLC; and Marcos Gonzalez, Esq., GovSpring Legal PLLC, for the protester.
Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., of Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for Clear Vantage Point Solutions II, LLC, the intervenor.
Timothy J. Rushenberg, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation under solicitation's past performance factor is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable.

2. Protester's challenges to other aspects of the evaluation are dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the successful vendor's quotation because another acceptable vendor is next in line for award.

DECISION

Jazz Solutions, Inc., a small business of Ashburn, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Clear Vantage Point Solutions II, LLC (CVPS), a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 91003125Q0035, issued by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), for all services required to build, implement, operate, and maintain a modern identity and access management cloud-based solution for FSA customers. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and award decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

As relevant to this procurement, the U.S. Department of Education uses two systems to provide identity and access management services for FSA users.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 1, PWS at 2. One system provides identity, credential, and access management and one system authenticates FSA customer identities and access management. Id. In general terms, FSA is seeking to merge these two systems into a new cloud-based solution within 18 months. Id. Additionally, the agency is seeking operations and maintenance services for the two existing systems if the agency delays or abandons the transition to a new solution. Id.

On August 27, 2025, the agency issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking services in the following General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule (MAS) contract categories: (1) “MAS/54151 - Information Technology - [(IT)] Software;” (2) “MAS/511210 – Software Licenses;” (3) “MAS/54151S – Information Technology Professional Services;” and (4) “MAS/541519ICAM - Identity, Credentialing and Access Management (ICAM).”[2] RFQ amend. 1 at 4. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single, fixed-price task order with a 12-month base period of performance and four 12‑month options to the responsible vendor whose quotation was the most advantageous to the government. Id. at 4, 7, 15.

The RFQ provided that the agency would evaluate quotations using a best-value tradeoff analysis considering the following factors: (1) technical approach; (2) key personnel; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 5. The technical approach and key personnel factors were equally weighted and more important than price; when combined the non-price factors were approximately equal to price. Id. The RFQ also provided that if vendors' total non‑price evaluations were essentially equal, “price may become more important.” Id. The RFQ further informed vendors that prices would be “evaluated but not scored” and that based on an integrated assessment of the price and non-price factors, award might not be made to the lowest-price quotation or the highest‑rated technical quotation.[3] Id.at 17.

As relevant to the protest, for the past performance factor, the RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate the vendor's past performance record with current and former customers. Id. at 16. The agency would consider the following areas: (1) timeliness; (2) management; (3) quality of products and services provided; (4) cost control; and (5) compliance with subcontracting plans/goals. Id. at 16. Past performance would be determined to be relevant if the performance involved two examples of work performed within the previous three years that were “the same or similar in scope, size, and complexity to the services being procured.” Id. at 14, 16.

Seven vendors, including Jazz, [Vendor F], and CVPS, submitted quotations by the closing date for the receipt of quotations. Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 4. In the agency's consensus evaluation, the TET assigned an adjectival rating for each non-price factor and documented any significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies identified during the evaluation process. Id. at 16‑17; Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 5. The TET established a ranking for the vendors based on an integrated assessment of the non‑price factor ratings. Id. at 7. The relevant rankings are as follows:[4]

	Ranking	Technical Approach	Key Personnel	Past Performance	Price
CVPS	1	Outstanding	Outstanding	Outstanding	$73,308,285
[Vendor F]	2	Outstanding	Good	Outstanding	$69,840,720
Jazz	3	Outstanding	Good	Good	$96,053,992

Id. at 7; Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 9-11, 17.

The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), independently reviewed the TET's findings and concurred with the TET's conclusions and rankings. Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 26-27. The SSA reviewed the evaluation results and conducted a comparative analysis of quotations to determine which quotation was the best value to the government. Id. at 23. The SSA eliminated three vendors from consideration because their price quotations were not fair and reasonable. Id. Jazz and another vendor were also removed from further consideration for award because they submitted significantly higher priced quotations and were assessed lower technical ratings when compared to other vendors.[5] Id.

The SSA compared CVPS's quotation (which was the highest technically rated and also the second lowest priced) with [Vendor F's] (which was the lowest-priced and second highest technically rated). Id. at 5. In the best-value tradeoff analysis, the SSA concluded that CVPS's quotation represented the best value to the government. Id. at 26-27. The SSA found that the key personnel factor was the primary discriminator between the CVPS and [Vendor F] quotations because [Vendor F] had not demonstrated the same level of experience as CVPS, the evaluators had less confidence in [Vendor F's] ability to execute the technical solutions, and because [Vendor F's] resumes did not indicate direct experience with proposed technologies. Id. at 25. The SSA determined that CVPS's ratings of outstanding under all the non-price factors, combined “with its demonstrated technical experience, depth of expertise, and high confidence of successful execution, provides benefits that warrant paying a [$ 3.47 million or five percent] price premium when compared to [Vendor F].” Id. at 26.

On April 16, 2026, the agency made award to CVPS and notified all unsuccessful vendors. AR, Tab 15, Notice of Unsuccessful Vendor. On April 27, the agency provided Jazz with a brief explanation of the award decision in accordance with FAR section 8.405-2(d). AR, Tab 16, Brief Explanation of Award at 1. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

The protester raises several challenges to the agency's evaluation of quotations and the resulting award decision.[6] Jazz argues that [Vendor F], the vendor ranked second by the TET under the non-price evaluation factors, should not have received a past performance rating of outstanding because none of the strengths or significant strengths assessed in its past performance examples exceeded the contract requirements for the customer's benefit as required under the relevant adjectival rating definition. Supp. Comments at 4-5. Jazz also challenges the agency's evaluation of CVPS's price quotation and argues that the agency deviated from the evaluation criteria by allowing CVPS to propose a substantial number of order-level materials (OLMs) as part of its technical solution.[7] Protest at 12-15. Jazz argues further that the agency's best‑value determination was unreasonable because it was based on an improper evaluation of CVPS's price quotation, which did not conform to the solicitation requirements, and an unreasonable evaluation of [Vendor F's] past performance.[8] Comments & Supp. Protest at 13.

For the reasons that follow, we find that the agency reasonably evaluated [Vendor F's] past performance quotation and assigned it a rating of outstanding. As a result, we do not address Jazz's other complaints pertaining to the evaluation of CVPS's and [Vendor F's] quotations because Jazz is not an interested party to raise them.

Past Performance

Jazz generally alleges that the agency unreasonably assessed Jazz's past performance as warranting a rating of outstanding under the solicitation's evaluation criteria. In this regard, the solicitation defined an outstanding rating as applying to a vendor that “met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the customer's benefit.” Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 6. The protester asserts, however, that the strengths and significant strengths found in [Vendor F's] examples do not reflect any areas where [Vendor F's] past performance exceeded requirements. Supp. Comments at 5 (referring to, for example, the strength assessed to [Vendor F] for “ensuring all contract requirements were met and tasks were performed effectively”); see also Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 41. The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated [Vendor F's] past performance and its determinations were consistent with the evaluation criteria. Supp. COS at 1‑2; Supp. MOL at 2. We agree with the agency.

Where, as here, an agency issues a solicitation to FSS vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition for the issuance of an order, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we 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. FreeAlliance.com, LLC et al., B-419201.3 et al., Jan. 19, 2021, at 5. The agency's evaluation of quotations and the assignment of adjectival ratings should be based upon a qualitative assessment of the quotations, consistent with the evaluation scheme. See, e.g., Perspecta Eng'g, Inc., B-420501.2, B-420501.3, Dec. 13, 2022, at 10. Further, it is well established that adjectival descriptions and ratings serve only as a guide to, and not a substitute for, intelligent decision-making. Id. As a general matter, an agency's evaluation of a vendor's past performance, including the agency's determination of the relevance and scope of a vendor's performance history, is a matter of discretion, which we will not disturb unless the agency's assessments are unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation criteria. Government & Military Certification Sys., Inc., B-411261, June 26, 2015, at 8-9. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. DEI Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, at 2.

The contemporaneous record here demonstrates that the agency reasonably evaluated [Vendor F's] past performance consistent with the evaluation criteria. As relevant here, [Vendor F] submitted two examples in its past performance volume‑‑one contract with the Air Force for identity access management services (the Air Force contract) and one contract with the U.S. Department of Education for FSA DevSecOps, cybersecurity, IT advisory services, including modernization and application development (the FSA contract).[9] Supp. AR, Tab 6, [Vendor F] Past Performance Quotation at 3-7. Both agencies returned completed past performance questionnaires with ratings and detailed explanations of the ratings assessed for [Vendor F's] performance of the contracts.[10] Supp. AR, Tab 7, [Vendor F] Past Performance Questionnaires at 2-3, 6‑7. [Vendor F] received ratings of exceptional for each category for both of its examples; that is, [Vendor F] received eight exceptional ratings. Id.

The TET reviewed the explanations for [Vendor F's] ratings on the past performance questionnaires, identified the RFQ task area that corresponded to the past performance questionnaire category, and assessed four significant strengths, four strengths, and one weakness, resulting in an overall past performance rating of outstanding.[11] Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 40. The evaluators found that both of [Vendor F's] past performance examples demonstrated high relevance to the current solicitation because the examples included all of the task areas under this RFQ and [Vendor F] received ratings of exceptional in every category from both customers providing feedback about [Vendor F's] performance. Id.; Supp. AR, Tab 7, [Vendor F] Past Performance Questionnaires at 2-3, 6‑7. [Vendor F's] weakness was assessed because the value of both past performance submissions‑‑[DELETED]‑‑was significantly lower than the $79.3 million independent government cost estimate for this procurement. Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 40-41.

Predicated upon the responses to [Vendor F's] past performance questionnaires, the TET assessed three significant strengths and three strengths in the area of management, and one significant strength and one strength in the area of quality of products and services. Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 40‑41. For example, the evaluators assessed a significant strength for management based on [Vendor F's] performance of the FSA contract because [Vendor F] employed a qualified, highly skilled team to perform all technical support responsibilities of the business applications supporting FSA's mission, and the team “demonstrated outstanding performance in all tasks described in the PWS,” including “the installation and maintenance of the software platform underlying those applications with no unplanned outages.” Id at 40; see also Supp. AR, Tab 7, [Vendor F] Past Performance Questionnaires at 3. Other representative examples of significant strengths and strengths assessed related to [Vendor F's] subject matter expertise in delivering “custom, unique[,] and superior quality products/services;” “positive customer engagement;” and [Vendor F's] submission of “high quality” contract deliverables meeting required specification on or before schedule. Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 40‑41.

The TET determined that the feedback from the questionnaires aligned with the exceptional ratings assigned by [Vendor F's] references and that both past performance examples had a high degree of relevance because they encompassed all task areas of this RFQ. Id. at 41‑42. The evaluators concluded that [Vendor F's] risk of unsuccessful performance was low and assigned a rating of outstanding to [Vendor F] for past performance. Id. at 40, 42.

The SSA reviewed the TET's evaluations and conducted a comparative analysis of the vendors' quotations. Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 23. In this connection, the SSA found that, under the past performance factor, [Vendor F] had a “consistent record[] for high-quality services” and [Vendor F's] rating of outstanding indicated “a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.” Id. at 24.

Jazz argues that [Vendor F's] past performance did not merit an outstanding rating because the record fails to demonstrate that [Vendor F's] past performance met the rating's definition, which required the vendor's performance to exceed “many contract requirements to the customer's benefit.” Supp. Comments at 4-5 (citing definition of an outstanding rating used by the TET). In the protester's view, the record only shows that [Vendor F's] past performance examples and past performance questionnaires met (but did not exceed) the requirements. Id. at 5. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably relied on the questionnaire ratings without meaningfully considering the substance of those questionnaires. Id. at 5. Jazz further contends that the agency's determination--that [Vendor F's] past performance represented a “low risk of unsuccessful contract performance”--met the adjectival rating definition for a rating of good but did not meet the requirement for a rating of outstanding, which required a “very low risk of unsuccessful contract performance.”[12] See id. at 5-6.

Based on our review of the record, we see no basis to question the agency's evaluation of [Vendor F's] past performance. As an initial matter, we note that FAR subpart 8.4 provides for a streamlined procurement process with minimal documentation requirements, requiring only that the agency's evaluation judgments be documented in sufficient detail to show that they are reasonable. FAR 8.405-2(f)3(a)(7); Citizant, Inc.; Steampunk, Inc., B-420660 et al., July 13, 2022, at 19. Here, while the agency report is somewhat limited, the documentation is sufficient to permit us to assess the reasonableness of the agency's assessments. In this regard, the record demonstrates that the TET reviewed the responses to [Vendor F's] past performance questionnaires, determined which evaluation area the explanations addressed, identified significant strengths, strengths, and weaknesses, and explained the rationale for its rating. There was no legal requirement for the TET to question the veracity of the information in [Vendor F's] references, and we have stated that an agency may rely on information from a past performance reference “unless there is a clear reason to question the validity of the information.” See, e.g., Thalle Constr. Co., Inc., B‑421345 et al., Mar. 27, 2023, at 14‑15 (finding agency not required to independently verify information in awardee's past performance proposal). Jazz has not offered any reason why the agency should have questioned the information in [Vendor F's] past performance questionnaires. Accordingly, consistent with the minimal documentation requirements of this procurement, the totality of the record here does not support a conclusion that the agency acted improperly.

In addition, we note that the rating definitions in the consensus report were internal agency instructions, and were not disclosed to vendors in the solicitation. We have long held that such internal definitions do not afford rights to outside parties. Tec‑Masters, Inc., B‑416235, July 12, 2018, at 4 n.1; see also Epsilon Sys. Sols., B‑409720, B‑409720.2, July 21, 2014, at 7 (failure to adhere to internal agency guidance does not provide a valid basis for protest). In this regard, although the protester notes disparities between the description of [Vendor F's] past performance used in the consensus report and the definition for a rating of outstanding, as discussed above, the record supports the agency's rating assessment notwithstanding the TET's misaligned verbiage.[13] Moreover, the SSA conducted his own review of the evaluation and concluded that [Vendor F] had a “very low risk of unsuccessful performance” and that [Vendor F's] quotation warranted a rating of outstanding under the past performance factor. On this record, we have no basis to disturb the agency's rating of [Vendor F's] past performance.

Interested Party

Finally, as noted above, Jazz also challenges the agency's evaluation of CVPS's price quotation and argues that the best-value award decision was unreasonable. However, as we find that the agency reasonably evaluated [Vendor F] under the past performance factor, the protester is not an interested party with respect to its remaining protest grounds.

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, and our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.0(a)(1), 21.1(a), only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of, or failure to award, a contract. A protester is an interested party to challenge the agency's evaluation of proposals where there is a reasonable possibility that the protester's proposal would be in line for award if its protest were sustained. BANC3, Inc., B-416486, B-416486.2, Sept. 10, 2018, at 9. Where there is an acceptable offeror that would be in line for the award ahead of the protester if the protester's challenge to the award were to be sustained, the protester's interest is too remote to qualify as an interested party. SRA Int'l, Inc.; NTT DATA Servs. Fed. Gov't, Inc., B-413220.4 et al., May 10, 2017, at 28.

Because we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated [Vendor F's] quotation under the past performance factor, we also conclude that Jazz lacks the requisite direct economic interest to maintain its protest on the remaining issues because it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained.[14] 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). In this regard, we note that the agency rated [Vendor F's] quotation as the second best under the nonprice factors and Jazz's as third best. Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 17. In particular, the agency assessed [Vendor F's] past performance as meriting a rating of outstanding, which was a higher rating than Jazz's past performance rating of good, and [Vendor F] submitted the lowest price quotation. Id. at 9-11, 17; Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 7. Accordingly, [Vendor F] would be next in line for award with a lower-priced, higher-rated quotation than Jazz's. We find therefore that Jazz is not an interested party to raise its other protest grounds and we dismiss its remaining arguments.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---