Quotient, Inc

B-416473.6,B-416473.7 Jul 30, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Quotient, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to J.R. Reingold & Associates, Inc. (Reingold), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 91995918R0001, issued by the Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), for website services. Quotient contends the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and resulting award decision were improper. 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:  Quotient, Inc. File:  B-416473.6; B-416473.7 Date:  July 30, 2019 David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Laurence Schor, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna PLLC, for the protester. Megan R. Nathan, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, 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 evaluation of protester’s technical quotation is denied where the agency’s evaluation, including consideration of creativity and innovation, was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s technical quotation is denied where the agency reasonably considered the mix and level of awardee’s staffing as part of technical evaluation.  DECISION Quotient, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to J.R. Reingold & Associates, Inc. (Reingold), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 91995918R0001, issued by the Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), for website services.  Quotient contends the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations and resulting award decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The NAGB is an independent, bipartisan 26-member board created by Congress to set policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The Nation’s Report Card.”[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFQ, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 92.  The NAGB develops policy in support of the NAEP by, among other things, identifying the subjects to be tested and setting the achievement levels for each academic progress assessment.  Id.  The NAGB’s website (www.nagb.gov) plays an integral role in the Board’s overall communication efforts with the agency’s constituents and the general public.  Id. at 92-93. The procurement here has been a long and contentious one.[2]  The RFQ was issued on February 27, 2018, as a small business set-aside to holders of General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for information technology supplies and services (Schedule 70), pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; RFQ at 64, 149.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a BPA under which fixed-price task orders would be placed for a base year with two 1-year options.  RFQ at 65; RFQ amend. 1 at 169.  In general terms, the PWS requires the contractor to provide all personnel, materials, and facilities necessary to successfully perform the specified NAGB website support tasks:  (1) project management; (2) website design, content management, and site maintenance; (3) content management services for annual nominations campaign; (4) cloud hosting and management services for website; and (5) information management assurance and web security protocols.  PWS at 96-114; RFQ at 67. The RFQ established that award would be made on a “best value” tradeoff basis, using three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical; past performance; and cost/price (hereinafter, price).  RFQ at 143.  The technical factor was comprised of four subfactors:  technical approach; management plan; project staffing; and organizational experience.  Id. Five vendors, including Reingold and Quotient, the incumbent, submitted quotations by the March 29 closing date.[3]  COS at 14.  An agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated vendors’ nonprice submissions using a point-scoring system that was set forth in the RFQ.[4]  COS at 14.  On June 1, the agency completed its evaluation of vendors’ quotations and selected Reingold for award. On June 13, Quotient filed a protest with our Office challenging the evaluation of vendors’ technical quotations and resulting selection decision.  On July 30, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating vendors’ technical quotations and making a new source selection decision.  We then dismissed Quotient’s protest as academic.  Quotient, Inc., B-416473, B-416473.2, Aug.