The Concourse Group, LLC

B-411962.5 Jan 06, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Concourse Group, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to RER Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124J-15-R-0064, to support the Army's financial, real estate analytical, advisory and consulting support services program. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal as unacceptable based on unstated evaluation criteria, engaged in disparate treatment between the vendors, and conducted misleading discussions. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  The Concourse Group, LLC File:  B-411962.5 Date:  January 6, 2017 Anuj Vohra, Esq., Robert Nichols, Esq., and Nooree Lee, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. MAJ Stephen P. Smith, Department of the Army, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency imposed unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably evaluated protester’s quotation as unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that the agency engaged in disparate treatment by applying lower scrutiny to the evaluation of awardee’s quotation is denied where differences between the contents and organization of the two quotations supports the evaluation results. 3.  Protest that the agency’s discussions were misleading is denied where the discussions were sufficient to lead the protester into the areas of its quotation which required revision.  DECISION The Concourse Group, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to RER Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124J-15-R-0064, to support the Army’s financial, real estate analytical, advisory and consulting support services program.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal as unacceptable based on unstated evaluation criteria, engaged in disparate treatment between the vendors, and conducted misleading discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2015, the Army issued the RFQ via the General Services Administration’s e-Buy system to holders of Financial and Business Solutions Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  The RFQ was to procure financial and real estate consulting support services for various of the Army’s Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) programs--such as the Army’s Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) and Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) programs--and various non-MHPI public/private partnership programs.  The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a single task order for a one-year base period and four one-year option periods.  The RFQ provided that award would be made on a lowest-price technically-acceptable basis, considering two non-price factors, technical capability and past performance.  The technical capability factor contained four subfactors:  (1) corporate experience; (2) understanding of the Army MHPI program; (3) staffing plan/qualifications of key personnel; and (4) quality control approach.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 33, RFP Amendment 0008, at 21-22.  As relevant here, the evaluation criteria under subfactor (1)--corporate experience-- involved consideration of 10 specific elements of corporate experience identified in the RFQ.  The subfactor provided that “[t]o be considered acceptable, the Offeror must be able to demonstrate experience on projects of similar scope and complexity to the specific tasks outlined in the [performance work statement (PWS)]” and that “[o]fferors are also required to provide a comprehensive narrative which explains how that experience on similar projects relate[s] and ties back to the Army’s MHPI program for the subfactor 1 elements.”  Id.