Platinum Business Services LLC

B-413947 Dec 23, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Platinum Business Services, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Laurel, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Redhorse Corporation of San Diego, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. QTA0016ACB3007, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for acquisition management and information technology (IT) support services. Platinum contends that GSA did not investigate whether Redhorse had a potentially disqualifying organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that the agency failed to verify the awardee's small business size status. The protester also challenges the evaluation of Platinum's technical quotation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Platinum Business Services, LLC File:  B-413947 Date:  December 23, 2016 Jody J. Venkatesan for Platinum Business Services LLC. John E. Cornell, Esq., and Alissa Schrider, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that the agency did not give adequate consideration to a potential organizational conflict of interest is denied where the protester fails to present hard facts indicating the existence of a conflict. 2.  Protest that the ordering contracting officer for a task order issued under a Federal Supply Schedule contract failed to verify the awardee’s small business status is dismissed where the Small Business Administration, in ruling on a size status protest, found that the solicitation did not require recertification of size status at the order level. DECISION Platinum Business Services, LLC, a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Laurel, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Redhorse Corporation of San Diego, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. QTA0016ACB3007, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for acquisition management and information technology (IT) support services.  Platinum contends that GSA did not investigate whether Redhorse had a potentially disqualifying organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that the agency failed to verify the awardee’s small business size status.  The protester also challenges the evaluation of Platinum’s technical quotation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was set aside for SDVOSB concerns, was issued on June 13, 2016, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to vendors holding GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts under special item numbers 874 6 (Acquisition Management Support) and C132 51 (IT professional services).  RFQ, amend. 1, at 4; §§ 9.1, 13.2, 13.4.  The solicitation provided for the issuance of a hybrid task order (fixed‑price with labor‑hour tasks) for a base period, 4 options years, and a final option period, based on a best‑value tradeoff among five evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance):  technical approach, personnel, management approach, past performance, and price.  Id. §§ 2.3, 5.1, 13.0, 13.4.  The RFQ’s statement of work (SOW) requires the vendor to provide transition ordering assistance (TOA) to GSA’s Office of Network Services Program (NSP) and its federal agency customers, as they transition from GSA’s expiring government‑wide telecommunications and network services contracts to the replacement Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions contracts.  See id. §§ 3.1‑3.4. Offerors were to submit separate technical and price quotations.  Id. § 12.1.  With respect to the technical approach evaluation factor, offerors were to propose a methodology for accomplishing all SOW requirements.  Id. § 12.1.5.  The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements and the extent to which the offeror demonstrated a realistic methodology for:  (1) providing technical advice on transitioning to new technologies to improve operational capabilities, future capacity, and modernization; (2) providing timely, accurate, and complete analysis of telecommunications labor, services, equipment, solutions, and their associated price points in the federal market; and (3) minimizing potential problems and risks, including how well the offeror addressed the government‑wide scope, dealing with the diverse needs of agencies, and meeting the aggressive schedule.  See id. § 13.1.  Offerors were advised that any quotation found unacceptable under a non‑price evaluation factor would be found unacceptable overall and not considered for award.  Id.