Equipment Solutions & Personnel, LLC

Decision

Matter of: Equipment Solutions & Personnel, LLC

File: B-424450

Date: July 29, 2026

Joshua N. Minton for the protester.
Michael W. Bauder, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, 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 challenging agency's best-value determination is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee's significantly lower performance risk warranted payment of the associated price premium.

DECISION

Equipment Solutions & Personnel, LLC (ESP), a small business of Mount Airy, North Carolina, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Aerial Machine & Tool Corp., of Dan, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE8E6-26-Q-0302, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for underwater breathing gas pressure regulator part kits for DLA Troop Support. The protester argues that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable best-value determination when it selected Aerial's higher-priced quotation.

We deny the protest.[1]

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2026, DLA issued the RFQ seeking quotations for 4,878 underwater breathing gas pressure regulator part kits in support of Operation Epic Fury, a U.S. military campaign against Iran that was initiated in February 2026. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 3;[2] Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1. The RFQ identified the supplies as “Critical Safety Item[s]” and specified two acceptable sources of supply by item name and parts number: Aqualung USA, Inc., part number 108344; and Aerial Machine & Tool Corp., part number 108344CW. RFQ at 3.

The RFQ was issued under RFO section 12.201-1, simplified procedures.[3] COS/MOL at 1. For the evaluation of quotations, the solicitation incorporated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provision 252.204-7024, “Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System [(SPRS)],” which states that the contracting officer will consider item, price, and supplier risk information obtained from SPRS in the evaluation.[4] RFQ at 18; DFARS 252.204-7024(c); COS/MOL at 2. In this regard, DFARS provision 252.204-7024 provides, in relevant part:

(c) The Contracting Officer will consider SPRS risk assessments during the evaluation of quotations or offers received in response to this solicitation as follows:

(1) Item risk will be considered to determine whether the procurement represents a high performance risk to the Government.

(2) Price risk will be considered in determining if a proposed price is consistent with historical prices paid for a product or a service or otherwise creates a risk to the Government.

(3) Supplier risk, including but not limited to quality and delivery, will be considered to assess the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk.

* * *

(e) The Contracting Officer may consider any other available and relevant information when evaluating a quotation or an offer.

Quotations were due to the agency by March 19. RFQ at 1; COS/MOL at 2. ESP submitted the lowest-priced quotation at $71,170, while Aerial submitted a quotation priced at $121,950. AR, Tab 3, Quote Abstract at 1-2. For the SPRS risk assessment evaluation, the contracting officer noted ESP's low SPRS score and SPRS history reflecting negative performance records--including negative performance records involving the same items required here. AR, Tab 2, Simplified Acquisition Award Document (SAAD) at 3. Aerial, by contrast, received a higher overall SPRS score and had no negative performance records for the items required by the RFQ. Id. As a result, the contracting officer concluded that ESP's lower price did not offset its greater performance risk and therefore selected Aerial's quotation as representing the best overall value. Id.

Following a debriefing and an unsuccessful agency-level protest, ESP filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

ESP principally argues that DLA failed to conduct a meaningful best-value determination when selecting Aerial's higher-priced quotation. Protest at 2. In this regard, ESP asserts that the agency improperly relied on SPRS information to select a higher-priced quotation without sufficient justification. Id. The protester further contends that DLA failed to recognize ESP's technical advantages, including its status as an authorized Aqualung original equipment manufacturer (OEM) service center. Id. The agency responds that its award decision was reasonable, consistent with the RFQ, and adequately documented. Based on our review of the record, we agree with the agency and find no basis to sustain the protest.[5]

Where, as here, a procurement is conducted using simplified procedures, agencies enjoy broad discretion in fashioning appropriate evaluation procedures.[6] First Am. Bus. Sols., B-420002, Sep. 29, 2021, at 3. However, the agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and evaluate quotations or proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. OReady, LLC, B-422910.2, June 18, 2025, at 3. In reviewing protests of allegedly improper simplified evaluations, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B‑423546, B‑423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, at 7. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment, without more, is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Gulf Civilization Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., B-417586, Aug. 23, 2019, at 9-10.

Additionally, an agency's evaluation of past performance, including its consideration of the relevance, scope, and significance of an offeror'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. Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., supra. An agency may properly select a more highly rated quotation or proposal over one offering a lower price where it has reasonably determined that the vendor's performance history outweighs the price difference. Id. at 7-8.

Here, t he contemporaneous record demonstrates that the agency evaluated quotations exactly as the solicitation contemplated. As noted above, the solicitation incorporated DFARS provision 252.204-7024, which notified vendors that the agency intended to use SPRS information in evaluating quotations “to assess the risk of unsuccessful performance[.]”[7] RFQ at 18. Consistent with that provision, the contracting officer considered each vendor's SPRS score, and underlying performance history, as reflected in the vendors' SPRS records. AR, Tab 2, SAAD at 3. For ESP, the agency noted concern with ESP's performance history generally and as a supplier of this specific item. Id. The contracting officer compared the protester's and awardee's respective SPRS information and decided that the lower performance risk associated with Aerial's quotation justified paying a price premium. Id. We see no basis to question the agency's judgment where, as here, the record thoroughly describes the basis for the agency's risk assessment and comparative analysis.

The protester disagrees with the agency's conclusion that Aerial's performance history justified paying a higher price.[8] Comments at 2-3. ESP further contends that the agency selected Aerial's quotation “based solely on a numerical SPRS differential without explaining how that difference translates into concrete performance benefits.” Id. at 3. We disagree. In our review of the record, the contracting officer did not rely solely on the vendors' numerical SPRS scores. Rather, the contracting officer considered the reasons underlying both vendors' SPRS scores--including ESP's negative performance records involving the identical item being procured here. AR, Tab 2, SAAD at 3. Based on these considerations, and because the requirement was “urgently needed to support the warfighter[,]” the contracting officer concluded that ESP's lower price did not outweigh the significantly greater performance risk associated with its quotation. Id. at 1, 3. On this record, we find the agency's decision to select Aerial's higher-priced quotation (with lower performance risk) to be reasonable. Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., supra at 7-8 (recognizing an agency reasonably may rely on SPRS information where the solicitation advises vendors that SPRS will be used in the evaluation and the contemporaneous record reflects a reasonable assessment of the underlying performance information). The protester's disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgment, without more, does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Gulf Civilization Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., supra.

Finally, ESP contends that the agency failed to consider ESP's status as an authorized OEM service center for one of the two items authorized by the RFQ. Protest at 2. The protester's argument provides no basis to sustain the protest. The solicitation's evaluation criteria do not include, or contemplate, an assessment of a vendor's status as an authorized OEM service center--or any other comparable measure of technical capability that would obligate the agency to consider this information. Instead, as noted above, the solicitation advised vendors that quotations would be evaluated using SPRS information in accordance with DFARS provision 252.204-7024. On this record, we find the agency reasonably did not consider ESP's asserted service-center status in the evaluation and source selection.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel