Nittany Business Movers, Inc.

B-411856 Oct 27, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Nittany Business Movers, Inc., a small business of Lorton, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Proven Management, Inc., a small business of Greenbelt, Maryland, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SECHQ1-15-Q-0044 for office relocation and warehouse management related services. Nittany argues that the agency's evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Nittany Business Movers, Inc. File:  B-411856 Date:  October 27, 2015 Michael Gladys, for the protester. George C. Brown, Esq., and Richard Ufford, Esq., United States Securities and Exchange Commission, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s quotation as unacceptable is denied where the quotation failed to comply with the solicitation’s requirements.  DECISION Nittany Business Movers, Inc., a small business of Lorton, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Proven Management, Inc., a small business of Greenbelt, Maryland, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SECHQ1-15-Q-0044 for office relocation and warehouse management related services.  Nittany argues that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable.  We deny the protest BACKGROUND On April 30, 2015, and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the SEC issued the RFQ as a small business set‑aside.  RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 1.  The solicitation was issued to ten vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 48, Special Item Number (SIN) 653-8, Office Relocation.  Id.  The RFQ sought quotations for a full range of office relocation and warehouse management services in support of the SEC’s headquarters location.  Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.  The solicitation contemplated the establishment of a single BPA with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.  RFQ at 1, 10. The RFQ provided that the BPA would be established on a best-value basis with the vendor that submitted the quotation determined to be the most advantageous to the government, price and non-price factors considered.  Id. at 10.  The solicitation identified the following four evaluation factors:  operational management solution, technical service requirements, past performance, and price.  Id.  The non-price factors were listed in descending order of importance, and when combined were more important than price.  Id. The SEC received eight quotations in response to the RFQ, including the quotation submitted by Nittany.  CO Statement at 2.  The Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) evaluated Nittany’s quotation and found it unacceptable under both the operational management solution and technical service requirements factors due to Nittany’s failure to provide information required by the RFQ.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, SEC TEB Consensus, at 11.  The quotation also received a limited confidence rating for the past performance factor because the TEB was unable to assess the “accuracy, completeness and validity” of the past performance information Nittany submitted.  Id. at 11-12.  On July 22, the SEC notified Nittany that it was not selected for the BPA.  AR, Tab 7, Non-Selection Letter, at 1.  Nittany filed the instant protest with our Office on August 3.  DISCUSSION Nittany challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation.  The protester asserts that the SEC unreasonably rated Nittany’s quotation as unacceptable for the operational management solution and technical service requirements factors.[1]  In response, the agency explains that it reasonably evaluated Nittany’s quotation as unacceptable because the protester failed to provide information which was required by the RFQ and necessary for the agency to conduct its evaluation.  Where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan.