The Lioce Group

B-416896 Jan 07, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Lioce Group (Lioce), a small business, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to Xerox Corporation (Xerox) of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1285287, which was issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for the lease and maintenance of copier devices. The protester challenges the agency's determination that its quotation was technically unacceptable, contending the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  The Lioce Group File:  B-416896 Date:  January 7, 2019 Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, PA, for the protester. Barry F. Smith, Esq., National Labor Relations Board, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s quotation is sustained where the agency improperly found the protester’s quotation technically unacceptable based upon an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation. DECISION The Lioce Group (Lioce), a small business, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to Xerox Corporation (Xerox) of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1285287, which was issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for the lease and maintenance of copier devices.  The protester challenges the agency’s determination that its quotation was technically unacceptable, contending the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2018, the agency posted the RFQ on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) e-Buy system, to vendors holding special item number (SIN), 51 58A, operating lease plan for copiers, under GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) No. 36-office, imaging and document solutions.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 3; RFQ at 1, 13.  The RFQ, issued pursuantto the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 8.405-2, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for the lease and maintenance, to include copier supplies, of 98 copier devices to be utilized at NLRB offices nationwide, for a base year and four 1-year option periods.[1]  COS at 1; RFQ at 4.  Award of the order was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  RFQ at 13.  Quotations were to be evaluated based on the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 14-15.  With respect to the technical factor, the RFQ stated “the vendor shall demonstrate its understanding of the requirements and provide a concise, detailed and thorough response of their capability to fulfilling the requirement[s] in the Statement of Work [SOW].”  Id. at 14.  The RFQ also provided that technical capability “shall be evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis in response to the requirements stated in the SOW of the solicitation.”  Id.  Under the price factor, vendors were instructed to submit a fixed price to support the requirement.  Id. at 15.  Additionally, the RFQ warned that “[q]uotes containing exceptions, qualifications, conditions, assumptions or any other deviations from the solicitation shall be considered non-responsive and will be rejected by the Government and not considered for award.”  Id. at 13. The RFQ’s SOW contained a multiple-page list of specifications describing the functions the copier devices would be required to perform.  RFQ, attach. 1, SOW (Apr. 20, 2018) at 2-6.  The RFQ was amended twice to incorporate the agency’s answers to questions from vendors (hereinafter, “Q & As”), and also to revise the SOW.  COS at 3.  As relevant to this protest, the SOW, as amended, stated:  “The ability to deliver output, securely and encrypted, to one or more endpoints (such as Blob Storage, File System Storage, OneDrive, SharePoint) in the Microsoft Azure Cloud or Azure Government Cloud is highly desirable.”[2]  RFQ, amendment 2, attach. 1, SOW (May 23, 2018), at 3.  Throughout their pleadings, the parties refer to this provision as discussing a “scanning to the cloud” capability.  The agency received eight quotations prior to the June 6, 2018 closing date.  COS at 3.  Following a preliminary review by the technical evaluation board (TEB), the agency identified areas in which it required additional information and asked clarification questions to all eight vendors.  Id.