Salient Federal Solutions, Inc.

B-410174 Nov 06, 2014 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Salient Federal Solutions, Inc. (Salient), protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4701-14-Q-0112, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for vendor support for its Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic System (STORES). Salient protests that the RFQ does not adequately set forth the agency's requirements. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:      Salient Federal Solutions, Inc. File:                B-410174 Date:              November 6, 2014 Karen R. Harbaugh, Esq., Robert E. Gregg, Esq., and Erik M. Dullea, Esq., Squire Patton Boggs-US, LLP, for the protester. Shantay N. Clarke, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation provided sufficient detailed information to allow offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis where it clearly indicated that the agency’s requirements were subject to change but provided sufficient information on which offerors could base their quotations. DECISION Salient Federal Solutions, Inc. (Salient), protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4701-14-Q-0112, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for vendor support for its Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic System (STORES).  Salient protests that the RFQ does not adequately set forth the agency’s requirements. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on July 1, 2014, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), sought quotations from vendors holding FSS contracts for General Purpose Commercial Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services (IT), Federal Supply Class 70, Special Item Number 132-51.  RFQ at 4.  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order for one base year and two one-year option periods.  Id.  The government estimates the value of this procurement as approximately [deleted].  STORES is a catalog, order, and receipt interface for food and related items used to provide food to about 550 worldwide locations.  Id.  The acquisition will provide vendor support for DLA to provide all necessary qualified personnel, supervision, management, materials and technical data to support documentation and maintenance of the STORES Web and Management Information System (MIS) application.  Id.  Prior to the deadline for the submission of quotations, Salient filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation; nonetheless multiple quotations were received, including a quotation from the protester.  AR, encl. 6, Contracting Officer Declaration, at 1.  DISCUSSION Salient asserts that, because of “errors, omissions, and otherwise understated requirements in the RFQ,” vendors will not be able to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.  Protest at 2.  Accordingly, Salient, which is the incumbent contractor for this requirement, concludes that it is “in an untenable position [deleted].”  Id.  As set forth below, Salient cites four examples of “errors and omissions” in the RFQ that it asserts will render vendors unable “to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.”  Protest at 7-13. The determination of an agency’s minimum needs and the best method of accommodating them is primarily within the agency’s discretion and therefore, we will not question such a determination unless the record clearly shows that it was without a reasonable basis.  CHE Consulting, Inc., B-297534.4, May 17, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 84 at 3-4.  Further, there is no legal requirement that a competition be based on specifications drafted in such detail as to eliminate completely any risk for the contractor or that the procuring agency remove all uncertainty from the mind of every prospective bidder.  Kingdomware Techs., B-407628, Jan. 9, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 27 at 3; see Analytics Inc., B-215092, Dec. 31, 1984, 85-1 CPD ¶ 3 at 4-5.  A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning the agency’s needs and how to accommodate them does not show that the agency’s judgment is unreasonable.  Gallup, Inc., B-410126, Sept. 25, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 280 at 5. We have also held, however, that a procuring agency must give sufficient detail in a solicitation to enable vendors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.  Kingdomware Techs., supra; Technosource Info.