Data Recognition Corporation

B-411767.7 Jan 20, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Data Recognition Corporation (DRC), of Maple Grove, Minnesota, protests the award of a contract to Ipsos Public Affairs, LLC, of Washington, D.C., by the Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Health Agency (DHA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT0011-15-R-0003 for program management support services. DRC argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's technical quotation and challenges the agency's best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Data Recognition Corporation File:  B-411767.7 Date:  January 20, 2016 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Steven A. Pozefsky, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., and Daniel P. Hanlon, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Ipsos Public Affairs, the intervenor. David R. Smith, Esq., Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation under the technical factor is denied where the record shows that, even if the agency made an error during the procurement, there is no evidence that the protester was  prejudiced by the alleged procurement error. DECISION Data Recognition Corporation (DRC), of Maple Grove, Minnesota, protests the award of a contract to Ipsos Public Affairs, LLC, of Washington, D.C., by the Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Health Agency (DHA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT0011-15-R-0003 for program management support services.  DRC argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s technical quotation and challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on October 31, 2014, sought quotations from General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract holders to provide consultation and survey program management support services to assist in the development, administration, analysis and reporting on surveys of DoD beneficiaries who receive outpatient care at military treatment facilities and through TRICARE purchased care.  RFQ at 20, 58.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with cost-reimbursable elements over one base and four option years.  Id. at 60-61. Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering technical, past performance, and price factors.  Id. at 28.  The technical factor was to be more important than past performance and both non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 28-29.  The technical factor included four subfactors listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, experience, management approach and quality control approach.  Id.  As relevant here, the technical approach subfactor states, “Demonstrated evidence of the capacity to field and complete all aspects of large-scale surveys . . . is important.”  Id. at 30.  Also as relevant here, the RFQ states that “management approach will be evaluated for the degree to which the Schedule Holder’s quote reflects a management approach (including approach to staffing) that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement.”  Id. at 32. Past performance information submitted by vendors was to be evaluated to determine the quality of the contractor’s past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort.  Id. at 35.  As stated in the RFQ, vendors could be assigned one of three adjectival ratings under the past performance factor:  acceptable, neutral or unacceptable.  A rating of acceptable was to be assigned where the vendor “has historically performed in a satisfactory manner in the fulfillment of like or similar requirements.”  Id.  Additionally, an acceptable rating was appropriate where a vendor has shown that it is capable of adequately performing the requirement, and the rating indicates a low level of performance risk to the Government.  Id.  The price factor was to be evaluated separately from the non-price factors and was to determine whether the offered prices for the base year and all option years were fair and reasonable.  Id. Eight vendors submitted quotations in response to the RFQ.  Agency Report (AR), exh.