Intellizant, LLC

B-410968.2 Aug 11, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Starry Associates, Inc., a small business, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Intellizant, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15-233-SOL-00023 for information technology (IT) business operations support services. Starry alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Intellizant's quotation and asserts that the agency's award decision was the result of improper influence and bias on behalf of agency officials. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 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: Starry Associates, Inc. File: B-410968.2 Date: August 11, 2015 Lars E. Anderson, Esq., James Y. Boland, Esq., Christina K. Scopin, Esq., and Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Brian L. Whisler, Esq., Jacob I. Chervinsky, Esq., and Jennifer A. Semko, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, LLP, for Intellizant, LLC, an intervenor. Brian E. Hildebrandt, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where the contracting officer did not evaluate the awardee’s quotation in accordance with solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that award decision was influenced by bias and undue influence is denied where allegations are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. DECISION Starry Associates, Inc., a small business, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Intellizant, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15‑233-SOL-00023 for information technology (IT) business operations support services. Starry alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Intellizant’s quotation and asserts that the agency’s award decision was the result of improper influence and bias on behalf of agency officials. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ was posted to the General Services Administration (GSA) e-Buy portal on November 13, 2014. Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 0003.[1] The solicitation was issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures, and set aside exclusively for small businesses. Id.; RFQ at 0074. Only qualified small business vendors holding contracts under GSA schedule 70 special item number (SIN) 132-51 (IT Professional Services) were permitted to submit a quotation in response to the RFQ. CO Statement at 0003. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a labor-hour task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. RFQ at 0074. The RFQ informed vendors that the awardee would be responsible for providing business operations support and maintaining HHS’s unified financial management system (UFMS), which is a system used by HHS’s program support center (PSC) along with other HHS operating divisions. RFQ amend. 002, at 0163. The intended goal of the RFQ was to deliver business operations support to the PSC and its customer agencies. Id. The agency informed vendors that they would be required to provide “immediate site level support at the PSC.” Id. The solicitation notified vendors that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis and that quotations would be evaluated under the following three evaluation factors: technical acceptability, past performance, and section 508 compliance. Id. at 0196. Technical evaluations were to be conducted in the order of lowest to highest priced quotation. Id. The solicitation stated that “[i]f [a] quoter’s technical, past performance and section 508 compliance quotes are found acceptable, the Government may award to that quoter without evaluating the technical, past performance and section 508 quotes of any other quoter.” Id. In this regard, non-price evaluations of higher priced quotations were not required if a lower priced quotation was determined to be technically acceptable. Id. The RFQ required all vendors to submit a technical volume as a part of their quotation. Id. at 0192. Vendors were instructed not to include references to price information in their technical volume submissions, but were required to include “resource information, such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.,” so that the agency would be able to evaluate a vendor’s understanding of the RFQ’s scope of work. Id.