FedResults, Inc.

B-414641 Aug 08, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FedResults, Inc. (FedResults), of Reston, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. (CTEC), of Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Interior (DOI), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ1156958. The protester raises multiple challenges to the establishment of the BPA, including allegations that the agency's price evaluation was flawed and that the awardee's proposal failed to satisfy certain solicitation requirements. 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:  FedResults, Inc. File:  B-414641 Date:  August 8, 2017 Richard J. Conway, Esq., Lyndsay A. Gorton, Esq., Stephanie M. Harden, Esq., and Michael J. Slattery, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for the intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency's finding that the protester's price was not fair and reasonable is denied, where the protester's price proposal was incomplete and its evaluated price was over 20 times the agency's estimated price.    2.  Protest is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee's proposal satisfied the solicitation requirements, and where the protester fails to address how it was prejudiced by any possible waiver of such requirements.  DECISION FedResults, Inc. (FedResults), of Reston, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. (CTEC), of Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Interior (DOI), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ1156958.  The protester raises multiple challenges to the establishment of the BPA, including allegations that the agency's price evaluation was flawed and that the awardee's proposal failed to satisfy certain solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2017, DOI issued the RFQ under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to current holders of General Services Administration (GSA) schedule 70 contracts, with a response date of February 6, 2017.  The solicitation sought support services for the Federal Consulting Group, a DOI component that provides digital communication services throughout the federal government.  The RFQ anticipated the establishment of one BPA, with one base year period and four 1-year option periods, for orders of email marketing services as well as for technical, management, training, and administrative support activities for planning and delivering digital communications management services to the federal government.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 4-6.  The solicitation provided for a best-value tradeoff, considering the following three factors in descending order of importance:  technical and management approach, past performance, and price.  Id. at 38.  The RFQ provided for a 2-phase evaluation under the technical and management approach factor, where phase 1 was an evaluation of written quotations and phase 2 was a live demonstration of the vendor's subscription management solution.  Id. at 36.  Phases 1 and 2, when combined, comprised the entire evaluation for the technical and management factor.  Id.  However, quotations receiving a rating of unsatisfactory after phase 1 were deemed ineligible for further consideration.  Id. at 37.  The following adjectival ratings were used in both phases of the technical and management factor evaluation: EXCELLENT - Quoted capability exceeds the requirements in a way that yields some additional benefits beyond the stated requirements.  There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is Very Low. SATISFACTORY - Quoted capability meets all minimum requirements and offers no benefits beyond the stated requirements.  Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is Low. MARGINAL - Quoted capability meets the minimum requirements however, it has one or more significant weakness.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is High. UNSATISFACTORY - Quoted capability fails to meet the minimum requirements and has one or more significant weakness or deficiency.