Windsor Solutions

B-415840 Mar 23, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Windsor Solutions, Inc., a small business, of Portland, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Plateau Software, Inc., a small business, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1170151, which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for smart mobile tools for field inspectors. Windsor primarily challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of technical quotations. 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:  Windsor Solutions File:  B-415840 Date:  March 23, 2018 Matthew R. Keller, Esq., Matthew Keller Law, PLLC, for the protester. Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Shane J. McCall, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for Plateau Software, Inc., the intervenor. Sara E. McGraw, Esq., and Kenneth Pakula, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the technical acceptability of the awardee's quotation for allegedly failing to satisfy a material solicitation requirement is denied where the agency's answers to vendors' questions on the solicitation unequivocally clarified that the stated objective was not a mandatory requirement. 2.  Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of multiple deficiencies in the protester's quotation is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable, documented, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Windsor Solutions, Inc., a small business, of Portland, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Plateau Software, Inc., a small business, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1170151, which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for smart mobile tools for field inspectors.  Windsor primarily challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of technical quotations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The EPA issued the RFQ, a small business set-aside, on February 13, 2017, to holders of General Services Administration Information Technology Schedule 70 contracts for commercial off the shelf (COTS) smart mobile tools for field inspectors and related support services.  RFQ at 1.[1]  The RFQ's accompanying statement of objectives (SOO) set forth a number of technical and security-related requirements for the tools and the associated services.  RFQ, attach. No. 1, SOO.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a time-and-materials task order, with a one-year base period and 2 one-year option periods.  RFQ at 2. The RFQ established a price-technical tradeoff selection process, with the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, being significantly more important than price.  RFQ at 15.  The EPA was to evaluate quotations using the following non-price criteria, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical capability (which included the following equally weighted subfactors: (1a) understanding and approach; and (1b) functionality demonstration); (2) management approach; and (3) past performance.  Id. at 15-16.  Relevant to the issues in this protest, the RFQ indicated that the agency would evaluate the understanding and approach technical capability subfactor for the vendors': [D]emonstrated understanding and technical approach to perform the requirements of the SOO contained in Attachment 1 to this RFQ; the demonstrated understanding and identification of potential challenges associated with performing the work with a well-defined and appropriate strategy for mitigating or overcoming those challenges; the extent to which the approach utilizes agile development methodologies; and the soundness of the technical approach to provide the solution within the specified timeframes. RFQ at 16. Additionally, under the functionality demonstration subfactor, the agency was to evaluate how the proposed solution addressed or comported with the function requirements provided to each vendor via the RFQ.  Id.  The equally weighted subfactors would be evaluated to result in a single overall technical capability rating.  Id.