Longevity Consulting, LLC

B-415596.2 Jul 17, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Longevity Consulting, LLC, of Washington, DC, a small business, protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to The Prospective Group, of Arlington, VA, by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. OPM1017T0001 for contractor support services. Longevity argues that the agency misevaluated its quotation under the past performance factor and misevaluated the awardee's quotation under the price factor. 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:  Longevity Consulting, LLC File:  B-415596.2 Date:  July 17, 2018 William T. Welch, Esq., J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and Peter A. Fish, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the protester. Heather B. Mims, Esq., Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., David R. Warner, Esq., and Tyler J. Freiberger, Esq., Centre Law & Consulting, LLC, for The Prospective Group, the intervenor. Matthew Donohue, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Source selection authority's disagreement with the conclusions of the technical team regarding the protester's past performance is unobjectionable where the findings are documented and reasonable. 2.  Protest challenging the agency's price realism analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency's analysis was reasonable and adequately documented.  DECISION Longevity Consulting, LLC, of Washington, DC, a small business, protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to The Prospective Group, of Arlington, VA, by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. OPM1017T0001 for contractor support services.  Longevity argues that the agency misevaluated its quotation under the past performance factor and misevaluated the awardee's quotation under the price factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued by OPM on May 1, 2017, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 as a small business set-aside to vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) No. 874/1, mission oriented business integrated services (MOBIS).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1 and 3.  The RFQ stated that the Performance Accountability Council (PAC) sought contractor support services to operate its program management office (PMO) and related security services for a 12-month base ordering period and two 12-month option ordering periods. [1]  Id. at 3; RFQ amend. 1, Statement of Work (SOW) at 3, 9.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price and labor hour BPA to the small business offering the best value to the government considering the following factors, in descending order of importance:  technical approach, past performance and price.[2]  RFQ at 82.  Under the past performance factor, the RFQ stated that the agency would determine the relevance of a past performance reference by analyzing the scope, magnitude and complexity of submitted contracts and comparing them to the present requirement.  Id. at 83.  The agency would then assign each proposal a performance confidence assessment of exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence.  AR, Tab 6.1, Evaluation Plan at 11.  Of relevance to this protest, satisfactory/confidence is defined as follows: Based on the offeror's performance record, the offeror met all of the Government's requirements, some minor problems and was satisfactory in taking corrective action; some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Id. at 11. Under the price factor, the RFQ required vendors to submit a price proposal that included prices for all task contract line item numbers for the base period and option periods.  The RFQ included an Approved Labor Category List (ALCL) that defined the GSA schedule labor categories available under the BPA.  AR, Tab 3.4, ALCL BPA Final Amend. 4.  If vendors utilized different naming categories than those provided in the ALCL, then vendors were required to include a crosswalk which clearly represented the corresponding GSA schedule labor categories.  RFQ at 78-79.  Offerors were also instructed to provide, separately from the pricing volume, a completed Excel spreadsheet which includes the overall BPA pricing and the proposed labor hour pricing for BPA Call W0001.[3]  Id. at 79.  The RFQ provided that price would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.  Id. at 83.