Sigmatech, Inc.

B-410933 Mar 18, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sigmatech, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the establishment of blanket purchase agreements (BPA) with multiple firms under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W31P4Q-13-T-0050, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for programmatic advisory and assistance services. Sigmatech challenges the evaluation of its quotation under the performance capability and socioeconomic factors, and argues that the source selection decision was improper. 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: Sigmatech, Inc. File: B-410933 Date: March 18, 2015 William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., and Gary S. Ward, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Michael J. Kraycinovich, Esq., Polly Chatham, Esq., and H. Bruce Bartholomew, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Sigmatech, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the establishment of blanket purchase agreements (BPA) with multiple firms under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W31P4Q‑13‑T‑0050, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for programmatic advisory and assistance services. Sigmatech challenges the evaluation of its quotation under the performance capability and socioeconomic factors, and argues that the source selection decision was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on January 31, 2013 as part of the Army Contracting Command’s Expedited Professional and Engineering Support Services (EXPRESS) BPA program.[1] RFQ at 3. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of four BPAs, but the agency reserved the right to adjust the number of BPAs based on the response to the solicitation.[2] RFQ at 3. The RFQ established a best value selection process considering the following five factors (which the RFQ terms “areas”): (1) performance capability; (2) teaming and business arrangements; (3) socioeconomic benefits; (4) pricing structure; and (5) past performance.[3] RFQ at 82. Regarding the performance capability factor, the RFQ established that the evaluation would be based on the breadth and depth of the BPA team’s experience in the individual requirements of the statement of work (SOW) and the categories of supported systems and equipment listed in attachment two of the RFQ.[4] RFQ at 83. Paragraphs 3.1‑3.8 of the SOW established the requirements, which were divided into eight programmatic functional specialty areas. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, SOW at 2-10. Each functional specialty area included a general statement followed by a list of tasks, referred to in the RFQ as “representative activities.” Id. For example, the SOW provided as follows under paragraph 3.3 (Schedule Development/Assessment): The contractor shall perform and/or provide input and recommendations in the following representative activities: a. Develop recommended program schedules. b. Assess planned (Government and/or contractor) schedule against schedule databases. c. Conduct risk assessments on both contractor and Government Schedules. d. Modify, develop, and maintain software programs for the development, maintenance, and recurring assessment of schedules. e. Develop and provide advice for schedule assessment techniques. f. Evaluate Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software scheduling/assessment tools. AR, Tab 2, SOW at 4. With regard to the socioeconomic benefits factor, the RFQ established that the evaluation would be based on the extent of the vendor’s commitment to support various socioeconomic programs, including, as relevant here, participation by Historically Underutilized Business Zone (i.e., HUBZone) small businesses. RFQ at 83. The evaluation would also consider the “small business status of the prime/team leader, proposed percentage goals for direct awards to small business team members and proposed percentage goals for small business subcontracts.” Id. The RFQ instructed vendors to describe proposed socioeconomic benefits, including a proposed goal for direct small business awards and a proposed goal for small business subcontracts, and to provide a break-out for each goal, by small business type, including, as relevant here, HUBZone small businesses.[5] RFQ at 79. Vendors were also instructed to address any commitments or initiatives that would ensure the use of small businesses, including HUBZone small businesses.