Empirical Concept, Inc.

B-415213 Dec 06, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Empirical Concept, Inc., of National Harbor, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Intelligent Fiscal Optimal Solutions, LLC (iFOS), of Columbia, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1201143, issued by the Department of Labor for budget execution support services. The protester, the incumbent contractor providing these services, challenges the evaluation of quotations and the selection 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:  Empirical Concept, Inc. File:  B-415213 Date:  December 6, 2017 Raymond C. McCann, Esq., Thomas O. Mason, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for the protester. Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, for Intelligent Fiscal Optimal Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. Peter J. Dickson, Esq., Savannah L. Wilson, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION Empirical Concept, Inc., of National Harbor, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Intelligent Fiscal Optimal Solutions, LLC (iFOS), of Columbia, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1201143, issued by the Department of Labor for budget execution support services.  The protester, the incumbent contractor providing these services, challenges the evaluation of quotations and the selection decision. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on June 9, 2017, through the General Services Administration (GSA) e-buy system under the procedures of FAR subpart 8.4 to vendors holding contracts under the GSA’s schedule 70, as a total 8(a) set-aside for budget execution support services.  RFQ[1] at 1; Id., Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1; Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFQ contemplated award of a single fixed-priced task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.  RFQ, PWS at 2.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors:  technical approach, past performance, and price.  RFQ, Evaluation Criteria, at 1.  The technical approach included the following subfactors:  relevant corporate experience, project management, staffing, and quality control.  Id.  The non‑price factors were of equal importance and when combined, were stated to be significantly more important than price; however, the RFQ stated that “if two [quotes] are determined to be relatively equal with respect to non-price evaluation factors, price may become the determining factor in the award decision.”[2]  Id. The solicitation advised that the quotations would be adjectivally rated against the evaluation factors[3] and that price would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.  RFQ, Instructions to Vendors, at 3-4. Five vendors submitted quotations, including Empirical and iFOS.  A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) was established to evaluate the technical submissions.  The results of the agency’s evaluation are as follows:   Overall Technical Past Performance Price iFOS Good/Low Risk Low Risk $4,994,650.00 Vendor A Outstanding/Low Risk Moderate Risk $6,140,976.00 Vendor B Good/Low Risk Low Risk $6,925,343.73 Vendor C Good/Low Risk Moderate Risk $8,977,406.00 Empirical Good/Low Risk Low Risk $10,449,539.80 See Supp. AR at 3. The contracting officer (CO), who was the source selection official for the procurement, found that while the vendors were very close on the non-price factors, there was a wide variation among the quotations on price, which became a major discriminator.  See COS at 3.  As between iFOS and Empirical, whose quotations received identical ratings, the CO did not identify anything in Empirical’s quotation that justified a 109 percent or $5.5 million price premium.  Id.  The CO found that because iFOS’s quotation was one of the highest rated and was the lowest-priced, no tradeoff analysis was necessary.  AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 4.  As a result, the CO found iFOS’s quotation to represent the best value to the government.  Id.