# Washington, DC 20548

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Agao%3A1b6aeaee5b515fd2

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Agao%3A1b6aeaee5b515fd2. Public record. Not legal advice.