Total Systems Technologies Corporation

B-416600 Oct 29, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Java Productions, Inc., of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its quotation from phase II of the competition conducted under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T05018Q9NMED010, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for program management support services. The protester argues that the agency's elimination of its quotation from the competition was based on considerations that were inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the solicitation and that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. 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:  Java Productions, Inc. File:  B-416600 Date:  October 29, 2018 William A. Wozniak, Esq., and Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Williams Mullen PC, for the protester. Christian Jordan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 exclusion from two-phased competition for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement is denied where the solicitation specifically informed vendors that the agency would eliminate from further consideration any vendors whose quotations were not deemed to be among the most competitive, and agency’s decision to exclude protester’s quotation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Java Productions, Inc., of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its quotation from phase II of the competition conducted under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T05018Q9NMED010, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for program management support services.  The protester argues that the agency’s elimination of its quotation from the competition was based on considerations that were inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the solicitation and that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, set aside for historically underutilized business zone small businesses, was issued on October 25, 2017, using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  RFQ[1] at 1, 241.[2]  The solicitation contemplated the establishment of a single BPA with a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods with the “responsible [vendor] whose [quotation] conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the [g]overnment, price and other factors considered.”  Id. at 241,  291.  As relevant here, the solicitation advised vendors that quotations would be evaluated in two phases, progressively reducing the number of vendors being considered for award in order to conserve time and resources in the evaluation of quotations.  Id. at 291-292.  During phase I, the agency would “determine the acceptability of each [vendor] by evaluating the technical submittal for the BPA level, the pricing matrix for labor categories proposed, and experience of similar size, scope and complexity.”[3]  Id.  The RFQ stated that the agency would eliminate from further consideration any vendors that were not deemed to be among the most competitive.  Id.  With regard to the price factor, the solicitation did not provide any details about how price would be evaluated.  Id.  In this regard, the solicitation simply listed, among the evaluation factors for phase I, “Price (BPA Labor Rates and Labor Categories)”.  Id.   The solicitation then explained that once the agency had reduced the number of vendors to what it considered an appropriate number, the agency in phase II would provide vendors with a statement of work (SOW) for a mock task order and request selected vendors to provide a technical quote, management approach, and price submittal for the mock task order.  Id.  The solicitation further explained that “TSA will then perform a price and technical analysis of the mock task order submittals and evaluate past performance.”  Id. The solicitation finally explained that “[u]pon evaluation in accordance with [p]hase I and [p]hase II, considering all factors (i) through (vii), the [g]overment will assess the apparent successful awardee for responsibility.”[4]  Id.  As relevant here, for the phase I pricing factor, the solicitation instructions with regard to the price factor were as follows: PRICE AND LABOR MATRIX:  Contractors shall provide the completed [l]abor [c]ategory [c]ross [r]eference [s]preadsheet with their quote . . . .