NextStep Technology, Inc.

B-416877 Jan 03, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NextStep Technology, Inc. (NextStep), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Federal Integrated Systems Corporation (Federal), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 693JJ418Q000011, issued by the United States Department of Transportation for professional and administrative support services for various divisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its quotation under the past performance factor and the resulting best-value tradeoff decision were improper. We deny the protest.   We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  NextStep Technology, Inc. File:  B-416877 Date:  January 3, 2019 Vincent Viriya for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for Federal Integrated Systems Corporation, the intervenor. Jean D. Wulff, Esq., and Chioma M. Ayogu, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations and the resulting best-value decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and award decisions were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION NextStep Technology, Inc. (NextStep), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Federal Integrated Systems Corporation (Federal), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 693JJ418Q000011, issued by the United States Department of Transportation for professional and administrative support services for various divisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).  The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation under the past performance factor and the resulting best-value tradeoff decision were improper.[1]  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on July 26, 2018, to contract holders of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) schedule No. 00CORP for professional services.  The RFQ was issued utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures for the establishment of a single BPA for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods to procure professional and administrative support services for a variety of job functions for FMCSA.  RFQ at 1.  The solicitation included a statement of work (SOW) identifying 15 labor categories, along with a detailed description of the duties and minimum qualifications for each labor category.[2]  Id. at 11-30.  The successful vendor would be required to provide the needed staffing and supervision to meet the daily duties and responsibilities for the various divisions of the FMCSA.  Id. at 8.  The RFQ contemplated establishment of the BPA on the basis of a best-value tradeoff, considering price and the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, management approach, and past performance.  Id. at 1-2.  The technical approach evaluation factor was stated to be more important than all other evaluation factors combined.  Id. at 2.  In this regard, vendors were advised that the government was “more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall price.”  Id. at 1.  As relevant here, in response to vendor questions concerning past performance submissions, the agency indicated that vendors were to provide a “[b]rief description of the project/services provided (clearly show size and scope) to demonstrate relevance to the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work.”  Agency Report (AR) exh. 3, RFQ mod. 2, Question & Answer (Q&A) No. 20.  The solicitation established that past performance would be assigned a performance risk assessment rating based on an evaluation of the vendor’s recent and relevant past performance history in providing the services in the SOW.  RFQ at 3.  As also relevant, the solicitation established a limit of 30 pages for quotations, with resumes and pricing not included in the page count.  Id. at 1.  In response to a request for clarification of the page limit for individual resumes and past performance submissions, the agency explained that “[c]over pages, resumes, and past performance are not included in the page count.”  AR exh 3, RFQ mod. 2, Q&A No.