B-309972.3, Deva & Associates PC, April 29, 2008

B-309972.3 Apr 29, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Deva & Associates PC protests the Department of Education's cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. ED-06-Q-0008, for financial advisory services. Deva asserts that the agency lacked a reasonable basis to cancel the RFQ and issue a new solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-309972.3, Deva & Associates PC, April 29, 2008 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Deva & Associates PC File: B-309972.3 Date: April 29, 2008 Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Steven D. Tibbets, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., and Antoiner White, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency decision to cancel request for quotations (RFQ) and recompete for accounting services was reasonable where agency's original (small business set-aside) requirement for financial statement preparation decreased and (unrestricted) requirement for credit reform reporting services significantly increased, and agency intended to combine all services under single task order, set aside for small businesses. DECISION Deva & Associates PC protests the Department of Education's cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. ED-06-Q-0008, for financial advisory services. Deva asserts that the agency lacked a reasonable basis to cancel the RFQ and issue a new solicitation. We deny the protest. As originally issued, the RFQ sought quotations from vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 520-7. It contemplated the issuance--on a time and materials basis--of three task orders (TO). TO No. 1 was set aside for small businesses and concerned financial statement preparation, analysis, reconciliation services, and other projects including Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Procedures that Work preparation, and budget service support. RFQ app. 1, at 1-2. TO No. 2 concerned improving the agency's capacity to analyze financial data relating to student loan programs as they relate to credit reform. TO No. 3 concerned documenting internal control over financial reporting in management statements in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123. Id. at 7. Quotations were to be evaluated under five factors--technical/management solution, performance metrics, small business strategy, past performance, and price. Under the technical/management factor, a vendor's proposed approach for each TO was to demonstrate its ability to perform the tasks as evidenced by past performance. Separate subfactors were included for each TO and were applied depending upon the TOs quoted. Price was to be evaluated on the basis of the proposed labor mix and total price for all options and transition periods. Non-price factors, combined, were of significantly greater importance than price. Task orders were to be issued made on a –best value— basis. Deva submitted a quotation only for TO No. 1 and it was one of three included in the competitive range. After discussions and the evaluation of revised quotations, the contracting officer, as source selection authority, concluded that Cotton & Company's quotation, with its higher evaluation score and lowest estimated base'year pricing, was the best value. Deva protested the issuance of TO No. 1 to Cotton and the agency filed an administrative report. After Deva submitted comments and a supplemental protest, the agency decided to take corrective action in the form of reevaluating the TO No. 1 quotations. We dismissed the protest as academic (B'309972, Sept. 26, 2007).[1] From September into December 2007, the technical evaluation panel met and reevaluated the three competitive range quotations. As part of this process, the agency asked all three vendors whether they would be able to perform TO No. 1 as proposed if the agency's resources were reduced below an earlier agency estimate of 25,500 labor hours. Deva requested clarification and, after the agency advised that any reductions were solely at the vendor's discretion, submitted a revised quotation with a more competitive price than it initially submitted. The agency subsequently decided to cancel the RFQ and resolicit its requirements. The agency based its determination on a variety of reasons including its finding that the original statement of work (SOW) was outdated and failed to emphasize its needs for credit reform reporting; its plan to merge the requirements of TO No. 1 with TO No. 2; and the fact that only Deva was left in the competition, since Cotton and the third vendor were no longer eligible small businesses.