Washington, DC 20548

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of:

H2L Solutions, Inc.

File:

B-424610

Date:

September 14, 2026

Jonathan Hard for the protester.

John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for The Dalton Gang, Inc.,

the intervenor.

Magda T. Reyes, Esq., and Desiree A. DiCorcia, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs,

for the agency.

Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s quotation is denied where

the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with

the solicitation.

DECISION

H2L Solutions, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of

Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of an order to The Dalton Gang, Inc., an

SDVOSB of Warrenton, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ)

No. 36C10B26Q0157, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for sanitization and

disposal of sensitive media. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably

assigned two negative findings to its quotation, resulting in an unreasonable source

selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFQ using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 on April 20, 2026, and amended it

three times. 1 Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1, 3. The RFQ, which was set

aside for SDVOSB vendors, sought quotations for the certified sanitization and disposal

of sensitive media including hard drives, compact discs and digital video discs, digital

platters, iPads, smartphones and cell phones, VHS backup and other tape media, flash

drives, and other media. Id. at 1; Agency Report (AR) Tab 4D, Amended RFQ at 13.

The RFQ contemplated issuance of a single, fixed-price order with a 12-month base

period of performance and three 12-month option periods. Amended RFQ at 14, 83.

The agency would issue the order to the vendor whose quotation presented the best

value to the agency on the basis of three factors: technical; price; and past

performance. Id. at 84-85. The technical factor was more important than price, which

was more important than the past performance factor. Id. at 85. Only the technical

factor is relevant to this protest.

With respect to the technical factor, the RFQ directed vendors to “propose a detailed

approach that addresses the following:”

The contracting officer and the RFQ state that the agency would issue the order on the

basis of a comparative evaluation in accordance with FAR subpart 8.4. COS at 1;

Agency Report (AR) Tab 4D, Amended RFQ at 84. As part of an ongoing

“Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” (RFO), the General Services Acquisition Manual (GSAM)

has replaced most of the FSS ordering procedures previously found in FAR part 8 for

agencies that have issued an adopting FAR deviation. On September 17, 2025, prior to

the issuance of the RFQ here, the agency issued a FAR deviation adopting the RFO

changes to FAR part 8. Class Deviation for FAR Part 8 in Support of Executive Order

on Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement (VIEWS 13782920), available at

https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/VA_RFO_Deviation_Pa

rt-8.pdf (last visited Sept. 4, 2026). Also, prior to the issuance of the RFQ, the General

Services Administration issued a mass modification to its FSS contracts to adopt the

RFO versions of multiple FAR clauses and provisions. MAS Refresh 30 Clause and

Provision Changes at 1 (available at https://buy.gsa.gov/interact/system/files/MAS_

Refresh_30%20Clause%20and%20Provision%20Changes-%20Revised%

2011_5_25.pdf) (last visited Sept. 4, 2026); see also Stondoh LLC, B-424439, July 6,

2026, at 3 n.3 (discussing mass modification to FSS contracts).

1

We requested that the agency report identify the applicable FAR terms--title 48 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, a deviation such as the RFO, or a combination

thereof--and if a deviation applied, include the deviation and explain which parts of the

RFQ are subject to the deviation. Electronic Protest Docketing System No. 7. To that

end, the cover letter and index accompanying the agency report in this matter states

that “[t]his procurement was conducted under FAR [subpart] 8.4,” but acknowledges the

agency’s class deviation adopting the RFO procedures for FSS orders such as the one

at issue here. Cover Letter and Index at 2. To resolve the instant protest, we need not

address any differences between the procedures set forth in FAR subpart 8.4 and the

class deviation adopted by the agency.

Page 2

B-424610

1.) The [vendor’s] approach to performing media sanitization and

destruction in accordance with (IAW) performance work statement (PWS)

paragraph 5.2.3.

2.) The [vendor’s] approach to mitigating the risks associated with

sanitizing and destroying sensitive electronic media IAW PWS

paragraph 5.2.3.

3.) The [vendor’s] approach to providing a secure web portal service to

users IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.2 and all its subparagraphs.

Id. at 87.

The RFQ provided that the agency would evaluate quotations under the technical factor

as follows:

The [quotation] will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it

demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the

problems and meeting and/or exceeding the requirements presented in

the solicitation and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and

resolutions proposed.

The [quotation] will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the

proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The

[quotation] will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence provided

to the [g]overnment with respect to the [vendor’s] methods and approach

in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely

manner.

Id. at 85.

The agency received and evaluated four quotations, including those submitted by the

protester and Dalton. COS at 3. The agency evaluated the quotations submitted by the

protester and Dalton as follows:

TECHNICAL

PAST PERFORMANCE

PRICE 2

H2L

Low Confidence

Low Risk

$3,917,004

Dalton

High Confidence

Low Risk

$4,890,323

AR, Tab 6, Brief Explanation at 1.

2

Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Page 3

B-424610

Based on a comparative analysis of quotations, the agency determined that the

quotation submitted by Dalton presented the best value to the agency and selected

Dalton for receipt of the order. COS at 3.

On June 23, 2026, the agency notified the protester that Dalton had been selected for

receipt of the order. Id. at 4. On June 25, the agency provided the protester with a brief

explanation for its selection decision. Id. In particular, the agency identified two

discriminators under the technical factor as the reasons why the protester was not

selected for receipt of the order, noting that the protester’s quotation had failed to

address destruction of tape media, and that its risk mitigation approach had not

addressed loss or theft of agency media. AR, Tab 6, Brief Explanation at 1-2.

This protest followed. 3

DISCUSSION

The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found that its quotation failed to

address destruction of tape media and loss or theft of agency media, or, alternatively,

that the agency’s evaluation departed from the RFQ’s terms in applying unstated

criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that there is no basis on which

to sustain the protest.

The procedures under subpart 8.4 of the FAR and subpart 538.71 of the GSAM both

provide for the evaluation of quotations on the basis set forth in the solicitation in the

circumstances relevant here. See FAR 8.405-2(d) (for orders requiring a statement of

work, “[t]he ordering activity shall evaluate all responses received using the evaluation

criteria provided to the schedule contractors”); GSAM 538.7103-3 (for acquisitions

above the simplified acquisition threshold, the agency is to “[f]airly consider all

quotations received by evaluating and making award according to the basis described in

the RFQ”). Thus, where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS vendors under

FAR subpart 8.4 (or its RFO equivalent) and conducts a competition, we will review the

record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the

terms of the solicitation. Digital Sols., Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, at 3-4; DEI

Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, at 2. In reviewing a protest challenging an

agency’s technical evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we

will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were

reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement

laws and regulations. OPTIMUS Corp., B-400777, Jan. 26, 2009, at 4. A protester’s

This protest is not subject to a GAO protective order because the protester opted to

proceed pro se, that is, without counsel. Accordingly, our discussion of some aspects of

the record is necessarily general to limit references to non-public information.

Nonetheless, GAO reviewed the entire record in camera in preparing our decision.

3

Page 4

B-424610

disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, does not establish that an

evaluation was unreasonable. DEI Consulting, supra at 2.

Tape Media

The agency’s brief explanation to the protester of the basis for its source selection

decision identified two reasons why the agency had not found the protester’s quotation

to present the best value to the government, the first of which related to the failure to

address the sanitization and destruction of tape media:

The [protester’s] technical approach is less advantageous because the

quot[ation] does not specifically address tape media or identify a tape

destruction method as required by PWS 5.2.3. Tape media is within the

scope of [the agency’s] media sanitization and destruction requirement.

This lack of specificity reduces confidence in coverage of required media

types and may require [g]overnment intervention to clarify how tape media

will be processed during performance.

AR, Tab 6, Brief Explanation at 2; see also AR, Tab 7, H2L Technical Evaluation Report

(stating same negative finding).

The protester alleges that this evaluation finding was unreasonable, arguing that its

quotation addressed the subject or, alternatively, that the agency’s negative finding

relied upon unstated evaluation criteria. Protest at 16-20; Comments at 13-16. The

agency responds that it reasonably evaluated the protester’s quotation in accordance

with the RFQ’s terms. 4 Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5-17.

Both the agency and the intervenor requested summary dismissal of the protest,

contending that the protest contained citation irregularities bearing the hallmarks of the

use of a large language model or other artificial intelligence technology without review

for accuracy. MOL at 3-5; Intervenor Req. for Dismissal at 1-3. In response, the

protester acknowledged that our Office may impose appropriate sanctions, including

dismissal of a protest, based upon the submission of filings with citations to non-existent

authority. Comments at 3-4 (citing Raven Investigations & Sec. Consulting, LLC,

B-423447, May 7, 2025; Helgen Indus. d/b/a DeSantis Gunhide, B-423635, Aug. 26,

2025; Oready, LLC, B-423649 et al., Sept. 25, 2025). The protester corrected some of

the citations contained in its protest, and withdrew its reliance on other cited authorities.

Id. at 4-6. The protester is advised to review citations for accuracy in any future filings

with our Office.

4

We further advise the protester--and future parties that appear before this forum--that

simply withdrawing reliance upon non-existent authority after it is identified is no

substitute for reviewing citations for accuracy before submission of a filing. The concern

that underlies our decisions in this area is ensuring that our bid protest forum provides

for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests. Raven Investigations, supra

at 4 (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3554(a)(1)). In that regard, a party’s citation of non-existent

(continued...)

Page 5

B-424610

As an initial matter, we conclude that the agency did not depart from the RFQ’s terms in

considering the extent to which the protester’s quotation addressed the destruction of

tape media. The RFQ directed vendors to provide “a detailed approach” that

addressed, among other things, the vendor’s “approach to performing media

sanitization and destruction in accordance with . . . [PWS] paragraph 5.2.3.” Amended

RFQ at 87. That paragraph of the PWS, in turn, requires the selected vendor to provide

media sanitization and destruction services consistent with the methods and standards

outlined in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication

(SP) 800-88, Revision 1, and specifically to “sanitize each hard drive, compact disc,

tape and thumb drive, or other media type” and then destroy the sanitized media. Id.

at 17. The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate that aspect of quotations, in

part, “to determine the level of confidence provided to the [g]overnment with respect to

the [vendor’s] methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the

requirements in a timely manner.” Id. at 85.

Thus, the RFQ advised vendors to provide a detailed approach to media sanitization

and destruction, including with respect to tape media. The RFQ further advised that the

agency would evaluate that approach to determine the agency’s confidence that the

vendor would meet or exceed requirements, including those related to the sanitization

and destruction of tape media. The agency therefore did not depart from the RFQ’s

stated evaluation criteria in considering the extent to which the protester’s quotation

addressed that matter.

The protester contends that its quotation addressed the destruction of tape media

through statements that the protester would “apply the appropriate NIST SP 800-88

methodology--Clear, Purge, or Destroy--based upon the characteristics of the media

presented for processing[,]” and further that it “repeatedly committed to complying with

every requirement of PWS § 5.2.3.” Protest at 17.

In a competitive FSS procurement, it is a vendor’s responsibility to submit a well-written

quotation, with adequately detailed information, which clearly demonstrates compliance

with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful review by the procuring

agency. Crittenton Consulting Grp., Inc., B-422503, July 10, 2024, at 7. A vendor’s

technical evaluation is dependent on the information furnished, and a vendor that fails to

(...continued)

authority--even if the party later expressly withdraws reliance upon it--requires the

expenditure of time and resources to identify the improper citations, thereby wasting the

time of all parties and GAO, and running counter to the statutory mandate of this forum.

Such misconduct may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions. See, e.g.,

Oready, supra (dismissing protests for abuse of process where the protester’s pleadings

included citations to non-existent decisions or materially false representations of the

factual or legal issues addressed in the cited decisions).

Page 6

B-424610

submit an adequately written quotation runs the risk of having its quotation downgraded.

Id.

On our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the agency’s evaluation was

unreasonable. While the protester’s quotation generally states that the protester will

use the appropriate method for sanitization and destruction based upon the media type,

it provides no media type-specific detail as to what methods the protester will use. As

the agency points out, NIST SP 800-88 prescribes sanitization and destruction

procedures for tape media that differ from those applicable to, for example, compact

discs. MOL at 13-15 (citing AR, Tab 8, NIST SP 800-88). In the absence of adequate

detail in the protester’s quotation, it was not unreasonable for the agency to question

the protester’s understanding of the differing methods applicable to sanitization and

destruction of tape media, thereby reducing confidence in successful performance of

the agency’s requirements. Moreover, we fail to see how the protester’s general

references to compliance with NIST SP 800-88 and PWS paragraph 5.2.3 reflect how

the protester would comply with those requirements. See, e.g., DCR Servs. & Constr.,

Inc., B-420179.2, B-420179.3, Apr. 28, 2022, at 6 (general references to

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

and personnel experience did not demonstrate approach or capability to perform

CERCLA functions that formed part of the agency’s requirement). Although the

protester may disagree with the agency’s evaluative conclusions, such disagreement,

without more, does not demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was improper or

inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Id.

Risk Mitigation Approach

The agency found that the protester’s quotation did not present the best value to the

government for a second reason, related to the protester’s risk mitigation approach.

Specifically, with respect to the loss or theft of agency media:

The [protester’s] risk mitigation approach is less advantageous because,

although the quot[ation] discusses missing media and transportation

incidents, it does not expressly address loss or theft of [agency] media as

a separate incident scenario as required by PWS 5.2.3.

AR, Tab 6, Brief Explanation at 2; see also AR, Tab 7, H2L Technical Evaluation Report

(stating same negative finding).

As with the tape media finding discussed above, the protester alleges that this

evaluation finding was unreasonable, arguing that its quotation addressed the subject

or, alternatively, that the agency’s negative finding relied upon unstated evaluation

criteria. Protest at 21-25; Comments at 6-12. The agency responds again that it

reasonably evaluated the protester’s quotation in accordance with the RFQ’s terms.

MOL at 17-22.

Page 7

B-424610

We similarly conclude that the agency did not depart from the RFQ’s terms in

considering the extent to which the protester’s quotation addressed loss or theft of

agency media. The RFQ again instructed vendors to provide “a detailed approach” that

addressed, among other things, “[t]he [vendor’s] approach to mitigating the risks

associated with sanitizing and destroying sensitive electronic media [in accordance with]

PWS paragraph 5.2.3.” Amended RFQ at 87. Paragraph 5.2.3 of the PWS requires the

selected vendor to “provide a [r]isk [m]itigation [p]lan that addresses the risks

associated with sanitizing and destroying sensitive electronic media including . . . loss or

theft[.]” Id. at 17. The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate that aspect of

quotations, in part, “to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear

understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting and/or

exceeding the requirements presented in the solicitation[.]” Id. at 85.

Thus, the RFQ directed vendors to provide a detailed approach to risk mitigation,

including specifically with respect to loss or theft of agency media. The RFQ further

advised that the agency would evaluate that approach to determine the extent of the

vendor’s understanding of the requirements and how to meet or exceed them. The

agency therefore also did not depart from the RFQ’s stated evaluation criteria in

considering the extent to which the protester’s quotation addressed mitigating the risk of

loss or theft of agency media.

Upon review of the record, we also cannot conclude that the agency’s evaluation was

unreasonable in this regard. The protester points to multiple aspects of its quotation

that it contends addressed loss or theft, arguing that it “repeatedly addresses the

operational controls whose very purpose is to prevent loss, theft, unauthorized access,

and loss of accountability.” Protest at 23. Indeed, the protester devoted several pages

of its quotation to its approach to risk mitigation. See AR, Tab 5, Protester Technical

Quotation at 5-8. While the quotation states that the protester’s approach mitigates the

potential for loss of agency media, however, it generally does not provide detail as to

how the protester’s risk mitigation approach does so. See id. at 5 (stating that the

protester’s controls “eliminate the potential for loss, tampering, or unauthorized

access”); 8 (stating that loss is a risk present in a transportation incident). Moreover,

the quotation contains no discussion of theft as a potential risk, or how the protester’s

approach mitigates that particular risk. To the extent the protester’s operational controls

mitigate the risk of loss or theft, it was incumbent upon the protester to clearly detail

how they do so. On this record, it was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude that

the protester’s quotation did not detail how the protester’s risk mitigation approach

addressed loss or theft of agency media. Again, while the protester may disagree with

the agency’s evaluation, its disagreement, without more, does not demonstrate that the

agency’s evaluation was improper or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

Source Selection Decision

Finally, the protester argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff was flawed because it

was based on a flawed evaluation. Protest at 26-29; Comments at 16-20. This

Page 8

B-424610

allegation is dismissed because it is based on the protester’s challenges to the agency’s

evaluation, which we have denied. See Crittenton, supra at 12.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez

General Counsel

Page 9

B-424610