Washington, DC 20548

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Decision

Matter of:

Hardwire LLC

File:

B-424524

Date:

August 27, 2026

The decision issued on the date below was subject to

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has

been approved for public release.

Brian G. Walsh, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., P. Nicholas Peterson, Esq., W. Benjamin

Phillips, III, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester.

Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Nikole R. Snyder, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,

LLP, for Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., the intervenor.

Morgan E. Dowd, Esq., and Gregory M. Mathews, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for

the agency.

Uri R. Yoo, 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 of past performance is denied where the

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

2. Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the

agency’s tradeoff was reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the

terms of the solicitation and the applicable laws and regulations.

DECISION

Hardwire LLC, a historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business of

Pocomoke City, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Point Blank Enterprises,

Inc., (PBE) of Pompano Beach, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP)

No. SPE1C1-24-R-0010, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for enhanced

small arms protective inserts (ESAPI). The protester contends that the agency’s past

performance evaluation and source selection decision were unreasonable and

inconsistent with the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2024, DLA issued the solicitation using the negotiated procedures of

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals for the manufacture

and delivery of ESAPI. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 6; Contracting Officer’s

Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The solicitation contemplated

the award of two fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, one

for each of two separate lots to be competed in sequence. RFP at 6. The first lot was

set aside for small businesses, while the second lot was to be competed on an

unrestricted basis with a 10-percent HUBZone price evaluation factor. Id. This protest

concerns the competition for the second lot.

The RFP provided for the award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering

past performance and price, where past performance--the sole non-price factor--was

considered significantly more important than price. Id. at 42. The past performance

factor was comprised of three equally important subfactors of recency, relevance, and

quality of performance. Id. at 43.

Offerors were instructed to submit no more than eight recent past performance

experiences for evaluation. Id. at 40. To be considered recent, the past performance

reference had to have been performed within two years of the solicitation’s closing date.

Id. at 41. Only those references considered recent would be evaluated for relevance

and quality. Id. Relevance was to be determined by comparison of the past

performance effort to “the effort to be acquired through the source selection.” Id.

Among other things, the agency would consider the “similarity of product/service/

support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and

extent of subcontracting/teaming.” Id. A subfactor rating of very relevant, relevant,

somewhat relevant, or not relevant would be assigned to each past performance

reference, and only those references found to be at least somewhat relevant would be

further evaluated for quality of performance. Id. at 43. As relevant here, a “very

relevant” past performance effort was defined as an effort that involved “essentially the

same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities” as the current requirement, while

a “relevant” effort was defined as an effort that involved “similar scope and magnitude of

effort and complexities” as the current requirement. Id.

The solicitation explained that each offeror’s quality of past performance would be

assessed “by gathering information on how well [the] offeror performed on those past

contracts.” Id. at 41. Offerors were instructed to “describe the quality of items delivered

in two (2) years preceding the solicitation closing date,” specifically addressing any

“warranty actions taken, quality deficiency reports issued, or returned merchandise.” Id.

The agency would assign a quality rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or

unacceptable based on three elements: past quality of items, past delivery

performance, and small business participation (applicable for large business offerors

only). Id. at 43-44. As relevant here, the rating of good was defined as a past

performance record that “indicates the offeror has consistently met contract

requirements and has exceeded some to the Government’s and/or other customers’

Page 2

B-424524

benefit” and where “contract performance has been accomplished with some minor

problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror have been effective.” Id.

Evaluations under the three past performance subfactors would be combined for an

overall performance confidence assessment rating of substantial confidence,

satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, or no confidence. Id.

The agency received five proposals for the second lot, including proposals from

Hardwire and PBE. 1 COS/MOL at 8 n.7; AR, Exh. 7, Combined Pre-Negotiation

Briefing Memorandum and Price Negotiation Memorandum (PBM/PNM) at 5. DLA’s

evaluators assessed the proposals of Hardwire and PBE as follows:

Past Performance

Recency

Relevance

Quality of Performance

Proposed Price

(Before HUBZone Preference)

Evaluated Price

(After HUBZone Preference)

HARDWIRE

Substantial Confidence

Recent

Relevant

Good

PBE

Substantial Confidence

Recent

Very Relevant

Good

$30,555,957

$30,182,194

$30,555,957

$33,200,292

AR, Exh. 8, SSDD at 6. The agency applied the HUBZone price evaluation preference,

adding 10 percent to the proposed price of PBE, the only large business offeror. AR,

Exh. 7, PBM/PNM at 37.

As relevant here, the agency considered the eight recent past performance references

Hardwire submitted for evaluation and found seven of the eight contracts to be relevant

and one to be somewhat relevant. Id. at 27. In assigning Hardwire’s proposal a rating

of “relevant” under the relevance subfactor, the agency found that Hardwire’s

“present/past performance include[d] hard body-armor applications designed as [a

critical safety item] with similar evaluation and testing requirements” and concluded that

these efforts “involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities” as the

solicitation required. Id.

PBE submitted three past performance references for evaluation, one evaluated as

relevant and two evaluated as very relevant. Id. at 18-23. The agency evaluated the

item quality and delivery performance information for each of the three references and

assigned PBE’s proposal a rating of “good” for the quality of performance subfactor. Id.

PBE submitted a past performance reference for the incumbent contract and the agency

considered eight corrective action requests for the contract that were issued during the

solicitation’s defined recency period (within two years of the solicitation’s closing date),

noting the cause of each corrective action request and whether corrective actions taken

1 One offeror withdrew its proposal after being awarded the contract for the first lot

under the solicitation. AR, Exh. 8, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2.

Page 3

B-424524

were effective. Id. at 18-21. The agency also considered the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for the effort, which rated PBE’s

performance quality as satisfactory with the comment that “many of the [corrective

action requests] issued were for reasons commonly seen within the hard armor industry

due to the stringent quality assurance requirements of” the ESAPI. Id. at 21. Based on

this evaluation of the incumbent effort, as well as two other efforts (rated relevant and

very relevant respectively, with quality and schedule ratings of satisfactory, good, and

exceptional), the agency concluded that the quality of PBE’s past performance

warranted the rating of good. Id. at 24.

The source selection authority (SSA) considered the evaluation results, conducted a

comparative analysis of the competing proposals, and concluded that PBE’s proposal

represented the best value to the government. AR, Exh. 8, SSDD at 4-14. Although

both Hardwire and PBE received the highest overall past performance rating of

substantial confidence, the SSA found that PBE’s past performance was for “the

identical item, tested at the same facility, and produced at similar or greater scale,”

while Hardwire’s history was “limited to Relevant contracts that do not fully align with the

production scale or complexity required.” Id. at 14. Noting that the past performance

factor was more important than price, the SSA concluded that PBE’s record of

performance provided “a stronger and more reliable predictor of future success,” “a

higher degree of confidence,” and “a lower performance risk.” Id. at 13-14. The SSA

therefore determined that PBE’s proposal warranted the nine percent price premium as

compared to Hardwire’s proposal and represented the best value to the government.

Id. at 14.

On May 13, 2026, the agency awarded the contract to PBE. COS/MOL at 16. After

requesting and receiving a debriefing, Hardwire filed this protest.

DISCUSSION

The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s past performance evaluation

and best-value tradeoff analysis. First, Hardwire asserts that the agency deviated from

the stated evaluation criteria and evaluated the relevance of offerors’ past performance

using unstated criteria. Protest at 9-10; Comments at 7-8. Second, Hardwire contends

that the agency unreasonably ignored negative past performance information included

in PBE’s proposal or otherwise known to the agency. Protest at 8-9; Comments at 4-7.

Third, Hardwire alleges that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff

analysis, failing to rank offerors before applying the HUBZone price preference and

giving undue weight to the awardee’s incumbency. Protest at 5-7; Comments at 1-2.

The agency responds that it evaluated offerors’ past performance in accordance with

the solicitation and conducted a reasonable best-value tradeoff analysis. COS/MOL

at 18-40. We have considered all of Hardwire’s arguments, and while we do not

specifically address every collateral argument, we find that none provides a basis on

which to sustain the protest.

Page 4

B-424524

When a protester challenges an agency’s evaluation of past performance, we will

review the evaluation to determine if it was reasonable and consistent with the

solicitation’s evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations, and to ensure

that it is adequately documented. Jacobs Tech., Inc., B-420016, B-4200016.2, Oct. 28,

2021, at 5. 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’s evaluation criteria. CrowderGulf, LLC, et al.,

B-418693.9 et al., Mar. 25, 2022, at 20; Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.,

B-415080.7, B-415080.8, May 14, 2019, at 10. Accordingly, we will not substitute our

judgment for reasonably based past performance evaluation ratings. Nexsys Elecs.

Inc., d/b/a Medweb, B-419616.4, Jan. 7, 2022, at 5. A protester’s disagreement with the

agency’s evaluation judgments concerning the merits of past performance does not

establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Matson Navigation Co., Inc.,

B-416976.2 et al., Jan. 24, 2019, at 5.

Relevance of Hardwire’s Past Performance

The protester first contends that the agency should have assessed Hardwire’s past

performance as very relevant since it demonstrated performance that was essentially

the same in scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicited requirement. Protest

at 9-10; Comments at 7-8. In this regard, the protester argues that the agency applied

an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring past performance on contracts for the

Department of the Army (specifically, with contracts containing Army-specific testing

and oversight requirements), to be considered very relevant. 2 Comments at 7-8. The

protester asserts that absent this error, Hardwire’s past performance would have been

assigned the highest rating of “very relevant,” instead of just “relevant,” under the

relevance subfactor and, consequently, would have been considered at least equal to

PBE’s past performance in the tradeoff. Id.

The agency responds that it evaluated offerors’ past performance using the stated

evaluation criteria, which included relevancy determinations based on the “similarity of

product.” Supp. COS/MOL at 7-11. The agency argues that it reasonably applied this

standard to find that Hardwire’s past performance was relevant, but not very relevant,

because it involved products with less stringent testing and evaluation requirements that

were similar to, but not essentially the same as, the instant requirement. Id. While the

protester takes issue with this consideration of “testing and oversight requirements,”

2 The protester initially argued that the agency improperly reserved the highest

relevancy rating for the “identical”--rather than “essentially the same”--work performed

by the awardee on the incumbent contract. Protest at 10. After reviewing the agency

report, which showed that another offeror’s performance on a non-incumbent contract

was also considered very relevant, the protester effectively withdrew the argument,

acknowledging that “this fact dispels the notion that an offeror was required to submit

past performance with the exact same scope to receive a Very Relevant rating.”

Comments at 7.

Page 5

B-424524

Comments at 1, DLA asserts that it was logically encompassed by the RFP’s “similarity

of product” relevancy criterion. Supp. COS/MOL at 7-11. The agency adds that

Hardwire’s rating of relevant was not based solely on testing and oversight

requirements, as the protester alleges, but rather on “quantifiable distinctions in product

specificity, testing rigor, and production scope.” Id.; AR, Exh. 8, SSDD at 12.

Although agencies are required to identify in a solicitation all major evaluation factors,

they are not required to specifically identify each and every element an agency

considers during an evaluation. UDC USA, Inc., B-419671, June 21, 2021, at 5.

Moreover, while agencies are not permitted to use unstated evaluation factors, an

agency properly may take into account specific matters that are logically encompassed

by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria, even when they are not expressly

identified as evaluation criteria. Advanced Alliant Sols. Team, LLC, B-417334, Apr. 10,

2019, at 5.

Here, we find no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of Hardwire’s past

performance under the relevance subfactor. As noted, the solicitation stated that the

agency would consider the “similarity of product/service/support, complexity, [and] dollar

value,” among other things, when determining the relevance of a past performance

effort to the instant requirement. RFP at 43. Therefore, the solicitation expressly

contemplated that the agency would assess past performance relevance by considering

the degree to which the product provided under the reference contract was similar to the

product required under the solicitation. In this regard, the solicitation included specific

testing and evaluation requirements for the ESAPI to be manufactured and delivered,

such as first article testing requirements under the inspection and acceptance section.

See id. at 6, 10. Given these stated product specifications, the agency’s consideration

of whether the offeror’s past performance involved products with similar testing and

evaluation requirements was logically encompassed by the stated relevancy criterion of

“similarity of product.”

In any event, contrary to the protester’s assertions, the agency’s assignment of an

overall rating of relevant to the protester’s past performance was not based solely on

these allegedly unstated testing and oversight requirements. Instead, the agency also

considered other aspects of product similarity (e.g., whether the primary material used

was similar), as well as the magnitude of the effort involved, before assigning a

relevancy rating to each of Hardwire’s eight past performance references. AR, Exh. 7,

PBM/PNM at 25-27. Based on these considerations, DLA determined that seven of the

references were relevant and one was somewhat relevant. Id. For example, the

agency found that Hardwire’s performance under a DLA contract to provide ESAPI to

the United States Marine Corps was relevant (but not very relevant) because it was

“similar in technical complexity” but the magnitude of effort (a dollar value of

$6,247,812) under the contract was “far lower than the instant requirement,” valued at

$46,399,554. Id. at 3, 25. Similarly, Hardwire’s performance under an Army IDIQ

contract was found to be only relevant because it involved a prior version of protective

inserts that were no longer issued to Army soldiers. Id. at 26. In contrast, the

requirement here was for an enhanced version of protective inserts with a higher-level

Page 6

B-424524

ballistic protection that “demand[s] more rigorous testing and enhanced material

performance to ensure consistent survivability against the highest-risk ballistic threats.”

Id. For each of Hardwire’s remaining references, the agency likewise noted material

dissimilarities with the instant requirement, e.g., use of steel plates versus boron carbide

ceramics or soft armor versus hard armor. See id. at 25-27.

Based on these product dissimilarities, as well as noted differences in the magnitude of

the efforts, the agency reasonably assessed Hardwire’s eight references as relevant

and somewhat relevant, rather than very relevant, which the solicitation reserved for an

effort that involved “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and

complexities” as the current requirement. Id.; see RFP at 43. On this record, we find no

basis to question the agency’s assignment of the overall rating of relevant to Hardwire’s

past performance under the relevance subfactor.

Quality of PBE’s Past Performance

The protester next contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s

past performance under the quality of performance subfactor. Specifically, Hardwire

argues that the agency failed to consider certain negative information about PBE’s

performance on the incumbent contract. Protest at 8-9; Comments at 4-7; Supp.

Comments at 1-6. In this regard, the protester argues that the agency improperly

limited its review of PBE’s performance on the incumbent contract by considering just

eight corrective action requests when PBE’s proposal identified sixteen. Comments

at 4-5; Supp. Comments at 2-5. Pointing to two prior modifications of the incumbent

contract that referred to the disposition or destruction of failed lots, the protester also

asserts that the agency unreasonably failed to consider information about PBE’s

deficient performance that was “too close at hand” to ignore. Protest at 8-9. With

respect to the eight corrective action requests considered by the agency, the protester

contends that the agency unreasonably “downplayed the severity of these performance

issues.” Comments at 5-7.

In response, the agency maintains that, consistent with the solicitation, it reasonably

considered all recent and relevant information about the quality of PBE’s past

performance. COS/MOL at 28-34; Supp. COS/MOL at 11-18. Specifically, the agency

explains that it properly limited its evaluation to just five of the sixteen corrective action

requests listed in the proposal, as only those five were issued within the two years

preceding the solicitation closing date of June 25, 2025. Supp. COS/MOL at 2-3, 11-17.

The agency also notes that it considered three additional corrective action requests

issued after the solicitation closing date. Id. With respect to the contract modifications,

which dated back to January 2022, the agency contends that it reasonably did not

consider such information as it fell outside the solicitation’s 2-year recency period.

COS/MOL at 32.

The solicitation here expressly defined recent past performance as “past performance

information over the last (2) years preceding the solicitation’s closing date.” RFP at 43.

Specific to the evaluation of the quality of performance subfactor, offerors were

Page 7

B-424524

accordingly instructed to “describe the quality of items delivered in two (2) years

preceding the solicitation closing date.” Id. at 41. As noted above, the solicitation

specified that non-recent performance would not be considered relevant and advised

that any performance outside of two years prior to the closing date would “not be further

evaluated for relevancy or quality of performance.” Id. at 43.

The protester does not dispute that the corrective action requests the agency declined

to consider and the cited contract modification documents occurred outside of the

solicitation’s recency parameter. Comments at 5 n.1; Supp. Comments at 2-4. Instead,

the protester argues that the “too close at hand” principle applies regardless of the

solicitation’s recency definition because the information was “relevant to the work

required” and not “outside of the scope” of the requirement. Supp. Comments at 2-4.

We disagree.

We have recognized that in certain limited circumstances, an agency has an obligation

(as opposed to the discretion) to consider “outside information” bearing on an offeror’s

past performance when it is “too close at hand” to require the offerors to shoulder the

inequities that spring from an agency’s failure to obtain and consider the information.

International Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, at 5. However, our Office has not

extended the “too close at hand” principle to apply to every case where an agency might

conceivably find additional information regarding an offeror’s proposal. See Perspecta

Eng’g Inc., B-420501.2, B-420501.3, Dec. 13, 2022, at 12; Hygeia Solutions Partners,

LLC; STG, Inc., B-411459 et al., July 30, 2015, at 13. In this regard, an agency has the

discretion to determine the scope of the past performance history to be considered,

provided all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and the evaluation is consistent

with the terms of the solicitation. Id.

Where, as here, a solicitation defines the boundaries for recent and relevant past

performance for evaluation purposes, the agency is required to adhere to those

boundaries in its consideration of past performance information, regardless of whether

that information was provided in the proposal or otherwise available to the agency. See

Perspecta Eng’g, supra at 13 (finding that the agency was not required to consider

protester’s incumbent contract because it did not meet the solicitation’s definition for

relevant contracts); see also, Tech Sys., Inc., B-423547 et al., Aug. 8, 2025, at 9

(finding that where the solicitation limited consideration of past performance to work

within the past five years, the agency was precluded from considering the portion of

work performed prior to the five-year period under an otherwise relevant contract

reference). Here, after having determined that PBE’s incumbent contract was recent

and very relevant, the agency’s evaluation, under the quality subfactor, appropriately did

not consider any information pertaining to PBE’s performance that occurred outside of

the solicitation’s expressly defined recency period, whether such information was

included in PBE’s proposal or otherwise “close at hand” of the agency. See

Supp. COS/MOL at 2-3, 11-17; AR, Exh. 7, PBM/PNM at 18-21.

We also find no basis to question the agency’s consideration of information about PBE’s

quality of performance that fell within the recency window. Specifically, the record does

Page 8

B-424524

not support the protester’s contention that the agency unreasonably “downplayed the

severity” of any performance issues under the incumbent contract. Comments at 5.

Instead, the record shows that the agency thoroughly considered each recent and

relevant corrective action request, including the reasons for issuance and the efficacy of

corrective actions, and found that PBE “effectively addressed minor issues through

acceptable or highly effective corrective actions.” 3 AR, Exh. 7, PBM/PNM at 18-21, 24.

The record shows that the agency also considered other recent and relevant

performance information for all three of PBE’s references and found that these “CPARS

assessments reflect[ed] ratings of Satisfactory, Very Good, and Exceptional for Quality

and Schedule.” Id. at 21-24. Based on these findings, the agency concluded that the

awardee’s past performance information “indicat[ed] that PBE consistently met

contractual requirements, exceeded some to the Government’s benefit, and effectively

addressed minor issues through acceptable or highly effective corrective actions,”

meriting a past performance quality rating of good. Id. at 24.

As our Office has explained, an agency’s past performance evaluation may be based on

a reasonable perception of a contractor’s prior performance, regardless of whether the

contractor disputes the agency’s interpretation of the underlying facts, the significance

of those facts, or the significance of corrective action. Jacobs Tech., Inc., supra at 12;

General Revenue Corp. et al., B-414220.2 et al., Mar. 27, 2017, at 40. Although the

protester disagrees with the agency’s judgment in this regard, such disagreement,

without more, is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See

Matson Navigation Co., Inc., supra. This protest ground is denied.

3 Contrary to the protester’s insistence that one of the corrective action requests (which

resulted in a warranty action of [DELETED]) was “not considered at all,” Comments at 6,

the record shows that the agency considered the request at issue in detail. See AR,

Exh. 7, PBM/PNM at 19. To the extent the protester complains that this particular

corrective action request was not discussed in the agency’s source selection decision,

Comments at 6-7, our Office has explained that there is no need for extensive

documentation of every consideration factored into a tradeoff decision. Special

Applications Grp., B-417698.2; B-417698.3, Feb. 19, 2019, at 10. Rather, the

documentation need only be sufficient to establish that the agency was aware of the

relative merits and costs of the competing proposals and that the source selection was

reasonably based. Id.

Here, the SSA documented her consideration of the relative merits of each offeror’s

past performance under each subfactor and conducted a detailed comparative analysis.

See AR, Exh. 8, SSDD at 4-14. Moreover, while the SSDD did not discuss every

relevant corrective action request issued to PBE under the incumbent contract, it

incorporated by reference the PBN/PNM (that did) and summarized the relevant

findings in the tradeoff. Id. at 2, 10-14. On this record, we find no merit in the

protester’s objection to the documentation of DLA’s consideration of the corrective

action requests.

Page 9

B-424524

Best-Value Tradeoff Decision

The protester next challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff and source selection

decision. Specifically, the protester contends that the agency improperly relied on

PBE’s status as the incumbent contractor in making its tradeoff decision. Protest at 5-7;

Comments at 1-2. As discussed below, we find the agency’s best-value tradeoff to be

reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 4

When making tradeoff decisions in a best-value source selection, selection officials

have considerable discretion. Omega Apparel, Inc. B-411266, June 26, 2015, at 6. The

propriety of the price/technical tradeoff decision does not turn on the difference in the

technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection official’s judgment

concerning the significance of the difference was rational and consistent in light of the

RFP’s evaluation scheme. Enviremedial Servs., Inc., B-423552.3, Mar. 24, 2026, at 10.

The documentation supporting the decision must be sufficient to establish that the

selection official was aware of the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals.

Special Applications Grp., supra.

The record here reflects that the SSA thoroughly compared the relative merits of the

competing proposals before concluding that the higher confidence offered by PBE’s

very relevant past performance outweighed Hardwire’s lower price. AR, Exh. 8, SSDD

at 11-14. In this regard, the SSA appropriately looked behind the same adjectival

ratings of the two offerors and based her decision “on the underlying context of each

offeror’s experience,” finding that PBE’s proposal showed “past performance on the

identical item, tested at the same facility, and produced at similar or greater scale.” Id.

at 14. On the other hand, the SSA found that Hardwire’s performance history, “while

positive, is limited to Relevant contracts that do not fully align with the production scale

4 The protester also asserts that the agency failed to comply with the applicable

HUBZone regulation by not ranking offerors before applying a price preference and by

failing to make award to Hardwire when Hardwire, a HUBZone small business, was

rated equally with PBE, a large business. Protest at 5-6; Comments at 1-2. In this

regard, FAR clause 52.219-4(a)(3) requires award to be made to the HUBZone small

business concern when the two highest rated offerors are a HUBZone small business

concern and a large business, and the evaluated offer of the HUBZone small business

concern is equal to that of the large business after considering the price evaluation

preference. The protester argues that, had the agency properly ranked the offerors and

“reasonably evaluated Quality and Relevancy” of past performance, Hardwire “would

have been rated at least equal to, if not superior to, PBE,” and therefore entitled to

award as the equally rated HUBZone small business. Protest at 5-6; Comments at 1-2.

We find this argument to be derivative of the protester’s evaluation challenges. As

discussed above, we find no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’

past performance. Accordingly, we dismiss this argument because the allegations do

not establish an independent basis of protest. CACI, Inc.--Fed., B-422774, B-422774.2,

Oct. 18, 2024, at 15.

Page 10

B-424524

or complexity required” under this solicitation. Id. The SSA then considered the fact

that “PBE’s evaluated price [was] $2,644,335.82 higher than Hardwire’s,” a difference of

approximately 9 percent, and concluded that “the technical advantages and the higher

confidence in successful performance offered by PBE outweigh the evaluated price

difference.” Id.

The protester points to the SSA’s reference to “identical item” to argue that this

evidences an improper preference for incumbent experience. 5 Protest at 7. We find the

protester’s argument unavailing. As an initial matter, the very sentence quoted by the

protester shows that the agency’s past performance evaluation was not limited to

considering whether the reference involved identical items and instead also considered

other factors, i.e., whether the past performance involved products that were “tested at

the same facility, and produced at similar or greater scale.” Id. As discussed above,

the agency’s consideration of testing rigor and production scale was logically related to

the stated evaluation criteria since the solicitation listed “similarity of product” as a

relevancy criterion. RFP at 43.

Moreover, it is well settled that an offeror may possess unique information, advantages,

and capabilities due to its prior experience under a government contract--either as an

incumbent contractor or otherwise--and the government is not necessarily required to

equalize competition to compensate for such an advantage, unless there is evidence of

preferential treatment or other improper action. See FAR § 9.505-2(a)(3); Jacobs

Tech., Inc., supra at 8; Lovelace Sci. & Tech. Servs., B-412345, Jan. 19, 2016, at 12.

An agency may properly consider such advantages, where appropriate, in accordance

with the evaluation criteria. See, e.g., Honeywell Tech. Sols., Inc., B-400771,

B-400771.2, Jan. 27, 2009, at 15 (finding reasonable the agency’s evaluation of an

incumbent protester’s advantages that met the evaluation criteria). Here, we find that

the agency reasonably considered PBE’s past performance under the incumbent

contract consistent with the evaluation criteria set out in the solicitation.

Citing our decision in Perimeter Security Partners, LLC--Costs, B-422666.2, Aug. 8,

2025, the protester argues that the agency improperly relied on PBE’s incumbency to

justify the price premium despite assessing the same overall past performance ratings

to both proposals. Protest at 7; Comments at 2. In that decision, our Office found that

an agency improperly credited an awardee for its incumbent status where the record

showed that the agency’s “aversion to disruption of the incumbent working relationship

[reflected] an implicit preference for the status quo.” Perimeter Sec. Partners, supra

at 11. We specifically pointed out, however, that “it may have been appropriate for the

agency to give weight to [the firm’s] successful past performance on the incumbent

contract, as that work could reasonably be considered more relevant than other work,”

5 As noted above, the protester initially argued that the agency improperly reserved the

rating of “very relevant” only for identical performance under the incumbent contract, but

later conceded that the record “dispels the notion that an offeror was required to submit

past performance with the exact same scope to receive a Very Relevant rating.”

Comments at 7.

Page 11

B-424524

but the agency instead based its decision on a desire to avoid “‘disrupt[ing]’ a working

relationship with the current firm,” which did not reasonably fall within the solicitation’s

stated evaluation criteria. See id. The facts on which we sustained Perimeter Security

Partners are not present in this case. Here, unlike the agency in Perimeter Security

Partners, DLA appropriately and reasonably concluded that PBE’s past performance on

the incumbent contract was more relevant than Hardwire’s performance on “contracts

that do not fully align with the production scale or complexity required” under the

solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. AR, Exh. 8, SSDD at 11-14. Accordingly, we

find no basis to conclude that the agency gave undue preferential treatment to PBE due

to its status as the incumbent.

Although the protester disagrees with the agency’s conclusion that PBE’s very relevant

past performance--some of which was acquired through its performance on the

incumbent contract--warranted its nine-percent price premium, such disagreement does

not provide a basis to sustain the protest. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s

determinations as to the relative merits of competing proposals, or disagreement with its

judgment as to which proposal offers the best value to the agency, without more, does

not establish that the source selection decision was unreasonable. Pacific-Gulf Marine,

Inc., B-415375, B-415375.2, Jan. 2, 2018, at 7.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez

General Counsel

Page 12

B-424524