Washington, DC 20548

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of:

E-Logic, Inc.

File:

B-424566; B-424566.2

Date:

September 9, 2026

Luis Padilla for the protester.

Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Captain Ellen R. Simic,

Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,

participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency misevaluated quotations in competition for task order among

Federal Supply Schedule vendors is denied where the record shows the evaluation was

reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

E-Logic, Inc., of Washington, D.C., a small business, protests the issuance of a Federal

Supply Schedule (FSS) order to Prime Response, Inc., of Accokeek, Maryland, also a

small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA701426Q0020, issued by the

Department of the Air Force for commercial furniture installation, reconfiguration,

moving, storage, and workspace support services and ad-hoc labor for Air Force and

Space Force facilities in the Pentagon and the National Capital Region. The protester

contends that the agency misevaluated the firm’s quotation and unreasonably selected

Prime’s higher-priced quotation for award.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The Air Force issued the RFQ on April 7, 2026, seeking quotations from small business

FSS vendors to provide services for a base year and four option years. Contracting

Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2. Quotations would be evaluated under two factors,

technical capability and price, where technical capability was significantly more

important than price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ attach. A, at 8. 1

The RFQ directed vendors to provide quotations organized in four volumes. As relevant

here, Volume II, technical capability, was to address both the vendor’s prior experience

and its technical approach, within a 30-page limit. Id. at 4.

The RFQ described a multi-step process for evaluating quotations. First, the agency

would evaluate on an acceptable/unacceptable basis whether the vendor had a facility

security clearance of secret or higher. Id. at 8-9. For vendors rated acceptable, the

agency would evaluate technical capability under two subfactors. Id. at 8. Technical

capability subfactor 1, prior experience, would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Id.

For vendors rated pass under subfactor 1, the agency would evaluate the quotation

under subfactor 2, technical approach. Id. The technical approach subfactor evaluation

would assess the soundness, feasibility, and effectiveness of the proposed technical

approach with regard to five areas: overall methodology, staffing and management

approach, surge and high-volume task handling, inventory management solution, and

the vendor’s controls for “ensuring accountability and performance continuity[.]” Id.

at 10. The subfactor 2 evaluation would result in an adjectival rating of outstanding,

good, acceptable, or unacceptable. 2 Each vendor’s prices would be evaluated for

“reasonableness, completeness, and balance[.]” A best-value tradeoff would conclude

the source selection process. Id. at 8.

E-Logic’s quotation passed both the facility security clearance gate and the prior

experience subfactor. The technical approach subfactor evaluation identified multiple

strengths and weaknesses for E-Logic. 3 The evaluation resulted in the following ratings

and prices:

The contracting officer states that the procurement was conducted under the

revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) overhaul (RFO) deviation. COS

at 1. The RFQ makes no mention of the RFO, however, but incorporates FAR

provisions and clauses. E.g., AR, Tab 3, RFQ at 10 (incorporating FAR clauses without

RFO deviation); AR, Tab 4, RFQ attach. A at 1 (competition to be conducted “in

accordance with FAR Subpart 8.405-5”). This matter has no bearing on the decision.

1

An outstanding rating represented a quotation that demonstrated an exceptional

approach and understanding, had multiple strengths, and had a low risk of unsuccessful

performance. Id. A good approach had a thorough approach and understanding, at

least one strength, and a low-to-moderate risk of unsuccessful performance. Id. An

acceptable rating meant a quotation that had an adequate approach and understanding

and a risk of unsuccessful performance that was “no worse than moderate.” Id.

2

The protester was not represented by counsel, so its representative received only

documents that had been redacted to remove proprietary and source selection sensitive

information. Although our review of the protest record included the full evaluation

record, this decision discusses the evaluation in general terms.

3

Page 2

B-424566; B-424566.2

Facility Security Clearance

Technical Capability

Prior Experience

Technical Approach

Price

Prime

Acceptable

Outstanding

Pass

Outstanding

$6,577,712

E-Logic

Acceptable

Acceptable

Pass

Acceptable

$5,129,117

AR, Tab 18, Post-Award Emails with E-Logic at 1, 4.

The contracting officer reviewed the evaluation record and made a tradeoff judgment,

which determined that the technical advantages of Prime’s quotation provided sufficient

additional value to justify incurring its higher price, compared to E-Logic’s lower-rated

and lower priced quotation, so the contracting officer selected Prime to receive the

order. Id. at 4. After being notified of the source selection and receiving a brief

explanation of the award decision, E-Logic filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

E-Logic contends that the Air Force misevaluated the firm’s quotation as merely

acceptable under the technical capability factor. The protester argues that a reasonable

evaluation of its quotation would have identified multiple aspects as strengths and, as a

result, its quotation would have been the best value due to its lower price. 4

In particular, E-Logic contends that its proposal should have been assessed strengths

for an overall approach that managed work by prioritizing jobs, a staffing approach that

ensured accountability, an approach to managing fluctuating workloads, a superior

inventory management solution, accountability and continuity controls that included a

facility clearance, a local logistics base, and practices that ensured quality performance

and property protection. Protest at 8-9. The firm contends that the Air Force assessed

no strengths for E-Logic’s proposal, which resulted in an overall rating of acceptable,

instead of the multiple strengths that it asserts should have been recognized and a good

or outstanding rating that should have been the result. Id. at 10.

Where a protester challenges the evaluation of quotations in a competition among FSS

vendors under FAR subpart 8.4, we do not reevaluate the quotations. Our Office will

The protest also argued that the evaluation of Prime’s quotation was unreasonable

and resulted from unequal treatment in the evaluation. The Air Force requested

dismissal of those arguments as lacking a factual basis. A valid protest must provide, at

a minimum, 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-4423546, B-423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, at 4.

The protester provided no factual basis to support the challenges to the evaluation of

Prime or that the evaluation reflected unequal treatment, so we dismiss them.

4

Page 3

B-424566; B-424566.2

review the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation is reasonable and consistent

with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.

Atlantic Sys. Grp., Inc., B-413901, B-413901.2, Jan. 9, 2017, at 3.

The Air Force argues that no strengths were to be assigned to the evaluation of whether

a vendor had the required facility security clearance aspect of the evaluation because

that was an acceptable/unacceptable assessment. Similarly, no strengths were to be

assigned under evaluation of the prior experience subfactor, which was a pass/fail

assessment. Consequently, the Air Force contends the RFQ provides no basis for the

protester’s argument that strengths should have been assessed to its quotation for

those issues. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2, 5; AR, Tab 20, Declaration of Technical

Evaluator at 2.

We agree. The RFQ did not indicate that those elements of the evaluation would be

used to distinguish among vendors beyond determining that the quotation was

acceptable under those criteria. Confirming this, the RFQ also expressly stated that

“[t]he overall Technical rating will be based on Subfactor 2 [the technical approach

subfactor] for those quotations receiving a Pass [rating] under Subfactor 1 [the prior

experience subfactor].” AR, Tab 4, RFQ attach. A at 10.

Moving to the technical approach subfactor, in response to E-Logic’s argument that it

was unreasonably assessed no strengths, the Air Force argues that the

contemporaneous evaluation record undermines the protester’s arguments. Contrary to

the protester’s claims, the evaluation did recognize multiple strengths in E-Logic’s

quotation under each of the subfactor’s evaluation areas. Among the strengths were a

key strength in the firm’s workflow process, strong proficiency in managing inventory,

and a responsive approach to managing workload increases. AR, Tab 17, Evaluation

Report for E-Logic at 1-2. The evaluation also identified a key strength in the firm’s

experienced and well-qualified top-level managers, and credited both the firm’s

experienced core staff and its surge labor bench to respond to periods of increased

workload. Id. at 3-4. The firm’s approach to high-volume/short-notice tasks was

credited for a key strength in identifying and responding to urgent requirements, along

with a plan to activate supplemental trained personnel. Id. at 5. The firm’s proposed

inventory management solution was praised for significant enhancements and providing

the agency with visibility and oversight. With regard to ensuring inventory accountability

and system usability, the agency identified additional strengths in E-Logic’s structured

and organized approach to inventory accountability that provided government-readable

records. Id. at 8.

The agency argues that other aspects of E-Logic’s quotation that the firm contends

should have been deemed strengths were reasonably evaluated as not exceeding the

RFQ requirements and therefore did not constitute strengths. For example, the agency

argues that having logistics capabilities in the local area did not constitute a strength for

E-Logic because having resources in the locale specified in the RFQ as the place of

performance was simply a necessity for being able to perform the requirement, rather

than a strength that provided additional value to the agency. MOL at 6.

Page 4

B-424566; B-424566.2

Our review of the record indicates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable. The

record shows that the agency recognized key strengths in the protester’s quotation

along with additional advantages for E-Logic’s quotation under the technical approach

subfactor, and that the agency had a reasonable basis for not evaluating additional

strengths for aspects of the quotation that did not provide additional value to the

agency. For example, while the protester argues that its approach provided a strength

by proposing measures to ensure that its vehicles were kept ready for performance

demands, Comments at 7, the record supports the evaluators’ determination that

ensuring that sufficient vehicles used for performing the work were kept ready was a

basic expectation for performance and did not merit the assessment of a strength for

any vendor. MOL at 6; AR, Tab 20, Decl. of Technical Evaluator at 3. The agency’s

explanation provides a reasonable basis for the evaluation of E-Logic’s quotation and

refuted the firm’s contention that the evaluation improperly overlooked strengths in the

firm’s technical approach.

The record also shows that the evaluation of the protester’s quotation as acceptable

overall, rather than good or outstanding, was based on multiple weaknesses in the

protester’s quotation under each evaluation area that contrasted with those strengths.

AR, Tab 17, Evaluation Report for E-Logic at 2-10. Most significantly, in the overall

evaluation summary, the evaluators focused their assessment on their findings that

E-Logic’s quotation lacked sufficient detail regarding daily workforce performance,

communication with stakeholders, and conflict resolution. Id. at 12. This lack of

adequate operational detail indicated a “moderate level of performance risk” in the

judgment of the evaluators, which resulted in an overall rating of acceptable under the

technical approach subfactor and, as a result, the overall technical capability factor. Id.

In its comments on the agency report, E-Logic disputes the assessment of any

weaknesses in the evaluation of its quotation. Comments at 5. The protester contends

that the evaluation of weaknesses was unreasonable and questions whether the record

shows that the weaknesses were “were real [and] material, [but not] duplicative, based

on unstated criteria, or outweighed by the proposal’s strengths.” Id.

We have reviewed the record--including portions not provided to the protester--and find

that it reasonably supports the evaluation of the most significant weaknesses in

E-Logic’s quotation. In particular, we reviewed E-Logic’s quotation with respect to the

issues assessed weaknesses in the firm’s technical approach. Our review provides no

basis to find unreasonable the agency’s judgments that E-Logic’s technical approach

provided only limited discussion of an approach to daily management of the

performance of its workforce and lacked detail about both ensuring communication with

people directly receiving the services and utilizing conflict resolution tools. We have no

basis to question the evaluators’ judgment that these aspects of the quotation were

sufficient to lower the agency’s confidence in successful performance under E-Logic’s

proposed technical approach. Accordingly, we have no basis to question the agency’s

judgment that E-Logic’s quotation provided a technical approach that was acceptable

but for which evaluated weaknesses precluded considering it to be either good or

outstanding, which then provided a reasonable basis for the source selection judgment

Page 5

B-424566; B-424566.2

that Prime’s quotation provided a better value. Accordingly, we deny E-Logic’s

challenges to the evaluation and source selection decision.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez

General Counsel

Page 6

B-424566; B-424566.2