Washington, DC 20548

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Decision

Matter of:

Jazz Solutions, Inc.

File:

B-424440; B-424440.2

Date:

July 29, 2026

The decision issued on the date below was subject to

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has

been approved for public release.

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

The RFQ was amended three times. As relevant to the protest, references to the RFQ

are to amendment 1 and references to the performance work statement (PWS), RFQ

attachment 1, are to RFQ amendment 2. In addition, citations to the record use the

Adobe PDF pagination of the documents produced.

1

We note that the RFQ and award documents indicated that the agency issued the

RFQ and conducted the procurement consistent with the FAR notwithstanding the

agency’s representation in response to the protest that the agency had adopted the

revolutionary FAR overhaul’s (RFO) GSA class deviations. See AR, Tab 5, RFQ

amend. 1 at 12; Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 1; Memorandum of

Law (MOL) at 1-2. The protester agrees that the RFO does not apply to this

procurement. Comments & Supp. Protest at 5 n.2.

2

We need not address this inconsistency (between the agency’s response to the protest

and the contemporaneous record) to decide the protest because our decision does not

rely on which procurement regulation applies. We note the issue, however, to alert the

agency to the discrepancy.

Page 2

B-424440; B-424440.2

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

CVPS

[Vendor F]

Jazz

Ranking

1

2

3

Technical

Approach

Outstanding

Outstanding

Outstanding

Key

Personnel

Outstanding

Good

Good

Past

Performance

Price

Outstanding $73,308,285

Outstanding $69,840,720

Good

$96,053,992

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

While the RFQ included no information about scoring or rating methodologies, the

agency consensus report identified and defined the adjectival ratings that the agency

would use in its evaluation. Supp. AR, Tab 2, Technical Evaluation Team (TET)

Consensus Report at 6-7. In this context, for the technical approach and key personnel

factors, the agency used an adjectival scale of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal,

and unacceptable. Id. at 6. For the past performance factor, the agency used a similar

adjectival rating scale of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable,

with definitions appropriate to past performance and different than the technical

approach and key personnel adjectival rating definitions. Id. at 6-7.

3

The total price quote is also included in the table; however, the TET did not evaluate

price.

4

Page 3

B-424440; B-424440.2

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

Notwithstanding the agency’s conclusion that their quotation prices were “significantly

higher,” the agency found that Jazz and the other vendor had fair and reasonable

pricing. Supp. AR, Tab 1, Best-Value Award Decision at 24.

5

We note that Jazz initially raised--and subsequently withdrew--allegations challenging

the agency’s evaluation of CVSP’s technical volume and asserting that the solicitation

was latently ambiguous. Comments & Supp. Protest at 3 n.1. Additionally, Jazz

alleged that the evaluation of [Vendor F’s] technical and price volumes was

unreasonable. Id. at 9-10. The agency provided a detailed response to these

allegations in its supplemental agency report and Jazz made no further mention of the

alleged unreasonable technical and price evaluations of [Vendor F] in its supplemental

(continued...)

6

Page 4

B-424440; B-424440.2

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.

(...continued)

comments. Accordingly, we dismiss these allegations as abandoned. TekSynap Corp.,

B-419464.3, B-419464.4, Jan. 5, 2023, at 4 n.4.

Generally, OLMs are products, services, or solutions acquired in direct support of a

federal supply schedule (FSS) order where pricing is not established in the FSS

contract. 48 C.F.R. § 552.238-115(a).

7

While we do not address in detail every argument the protester raised, we have

reviewed each issue and find no basis to sustain the protest.

8

Page 5

B-424440; B-424440.2

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]

As discussed above, the RFP instructed offerors to provide two past performance

examples of work, similar to this procurement, performed within the previous 36 months.

RFQ amend. 1 at 14. Vendors were required to submit examples “showcasing

capabilities of the [c]ontractor to deliver the outcomes required under this procurement.”

Id. The RFQ informed vendors that the agency would evaluate the past performance

examples based on the vendors’ records with their current and former customers. Id.

at 16. The agency would determine that past performance was relevant if the example

was “the same or similar in scope, size, and complexity to the services” procured by this

RFQ. Id.

9

The past performance questionnaires identified different categories of evaluation than

the areas identified in the RFQ. In this regard, the questionnaires rated vendors’

contract performance in the following areas: (1) “conformed to contract requirements,

specifications, and standards of good workmanship;” (2) timeliness; (3) ability to fulfill

the contract’s technical requirements; and (4) “responsiveness to customer concerns.”

Supp. AR, Tab 7, [Vendor F] Past Performance Questionnaires at 2-3, 6 7.

10

Page 6

B-424440; B-424440.2

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

The agency’s evaluators considered a rating of outstanding for the past performance

factor to apply if a vendor’s performance “met contractual requirements and exceeded

many to the customer’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with no to a few minor

problems for which any required corrective actions taken were highly effective. Past

performance indicates a very low risk of unsuccessful performance to the

[g]overnment.” Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 6.

11

Page 7

B-424440; B-424440.2

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,

The adjectival rating for good was defined as applying to performance that “met

contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems

for which any required corrective actions taken were satisfactory. Past performance

indicates a moderate to low risk of unsuccessful performance to the [g]overnment.”

Supp. AR, Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 6.

12

Page 8

B-424440; B-424440.2

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

We note further that the TET’s finding that [Vendor F’s] past performance reflected

“the capacity to meet and exceed FSA’s requirements” was inconsistent with the rating

definition for a good rating (the rating that the protester espouses), which stated it

applies where the vendor’s past performance “met contractual requirements.” Supp. AR

Tab 2, TET Consensus Report at 6 (defining adjectival ratings), 40 (TET findings). In

contrast, the definition for a rating of outstanding stated it applies where the vendor’s

performance “met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the customer’s

benefit.” Id. at 6.

13

Page 9

B-424440; B-424440.2

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

Jazz also argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was improper

because it was based on a flawed evaluation. Protest at 15-16. These allegations are

derivative of Jazz’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation, which we concluded do not

provide a basis to sustain the protest. Accordingly, we dismiss Jazz’s challenges to the

best-value tradeoff because derivative allegations do not establish an independent

basis of protest. GCC Techs., LLC, B-416459.2, Nov. 19, 2018, at 8. Moreover, even if

we were to sustain Jazz’s derivative argument that the agency’s best-value tradeoff was

unreasonable, Jazz is not an interested party to raise this protest ground because it

would not be in-line for contract award since, as discussed above, we have denied the

challenges to the evaluation of the next-in-line vendor, [Vendor F]. 4 C.F.R.

§ 21.0(a)(1).

14

Page 10

B-424440; B-424440.2