B-299858, Computer Cite, August 31, 2007

B-299858 Aug 31, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computer Cite (CCite) protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision to reject its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. GSC-TFMG-RFQ-07-0003, issued by GSA on behalf of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration, for management, organizational, and administrative support services. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299858, Computer Cite, August 31, 2007 Decision Matter of: Computer Cite File: B-299858 Date: August 31, 2007 Cammy C. Ticknor for the protester. Jaron E. Chriss, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg., Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly rejected quotation of vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) for the award of basic ordering agreements with Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract holders, where the vendor did not propose a contract teaming agreement (CTA) in accordance with the conditions imposed by the RFQ and did not satisfy the RFQ requirement applicable where an offering vendor is not a CTA that a single offeror hold all of the FSS Schedule contracts required by the RFQ. DECISION Computer Cite (CCite) protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision to reject its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. GSC-TFMG-RFQ-07-0003, issued by GSA on behalf of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration, for management, organizational, and administrative support services. We deny the protest. The RFQ provided for the issuance of blanket purchase agreements (BPA) on a labor hour, time-and-materials, and/or firm fixed-price basis. The labor, support products, and travel costs of performing under the BPAs were not to exceed $205,700,000 over a 5-year period. RFQ sections 1.1, 1.2. The competition was limited to GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) holders, specifically vendors that either by themselves, or collectively with their team, held MOBIS, Language Services, and LOGWORLD schedule contracts and certain identified special item numbers (SIN) under those contracts.[1] The RFP provided that the required SINs were –minimum requirements,— and that the –[f]ailure of the contractor team to collectively possess the identified schedules and SINs at [the] time of RFQ closing will result in rejection of the entire offer.— Id. sect. 2.3; see id. sect. 11.1. The RFQ instructed that the –BPA Team— may consist of a –Prime Contractor/Team Leader— or –Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) Team Lead/CTA Team Member— relationship. Vendors were informed that The –Prime Contractor/Team Leader— (BPA Holder) MUST have a GSA MOBIS Schedule Contract. A –Team Member— also must be a GSA Schedule contractor that has agreed to be part of the BPA Holder's team via the establishment of a formal CTA. A formal CTA is not required for a Prime Contractor/Subcontractor relationship. A Subcontractor need not possess a GSA Schedule contract. Therefore, all work performed by the subcontractor must be within the prices, labor categories, SINs, scope, and terms and conditions of the GSA Schedule contract in which the subcontractor is performing the work. Id. sect. 7.5.4;[2] see id. sect. 10.6.2. The RFQ provided that if a vendor's quotation was based on a CTA, then the CTA could be provided in –whatever form and/or format the team collectively decides is most appropriate.— –At a minimum,— however, the CTAs were required to contain such information as the name, schedule number, agreed upon team discount, period of performance, point of contact information of the team leader and team members, business size of the team leader and team members, and delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the team members. Id. sect. 10.6.3. In addition, a CTA was required to describe the manner in which any of the team members would take a leadership role at the task order level in the event that award through a team member was determined to be in the best interests of the Government. Id.The RFQ also provided that if no CTA was being proposed, the vendor was required to indicate the manner in which it intended to satisfy the GSA Schedule and SIN requirements of the BPA, and stated that: There is no requirement for CTAs to be formed under this acquisition, provided that a single offeror possesses all of the required MOBIS, Language [Services] and LOGWORLD Schedule contracts and required SINs, under the same company name and address. Id. Multiple BPAs were to be issued on a best-value basis, considering price and five technical factors (listed in descending order of importance): team lead/prime contractor socioeconomic considerations, management approach, technical approach, past performance, and key personnel. Id. sections 11.1-11.3.