Illustrious Consultants

B-416914 Dec 28, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Illustrious Consultants (IC), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a purchase order (PO) to Business Operational Concepts, LLC (BOC), of Ellicott City, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 243618-18-Q-0047, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for Enghouse software licenses. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Illustrious Consultants File:  B-416914 Date:  December 28, 2018 Kahlia Meeks for the protester. Austin Fulk, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s requirements, and where it was not clear from the solicitation that the protester’s more restrictive interpretation of the solicitation was intended by the agency.  DECISION Illustrious Consultants (IC), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a purchase order (PO) to Business Operational Concepts, LLC (BOC), of Ellicott City, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 243618-18-Q-0047, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for Enghouse software licenses.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, set aside for women-owned small businesses (WOSB) and issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Items) and 13.5 (Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items), contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price PO.  Protest, Exh. 4, RFQ at 2.  Award would be made to the WOSB “authorized reseller” submitting the lowest-priced technically-acceptable quotation.  Id.  A technically acceptable quotation was defined as one that “demonstrates an ability to meet the specifications of the [bill of materials (BOM)].”  Id.  The agency would evaluate the lowest-priced quotation for technical acceptability.  Id. at 3.  The agency would only evaluate other quotations for technical acceptability if the lowest-priced quotation was found unacceptable.  See id. The protester and the awardee, both of whom have supplied software licenses to OPM, submitted the only two quotations.  The protester is the current incumbent.  Agency Report (AR), Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  BOC submitted the lowest-priced quotation.  The contract specialist emailed Enghouse Interactive with a technical question regarding the licenses OPM would be receiving.  Enghouse Interactive advised the agency that BOC was not an authorized reseller.  Id. at 3.  The agency, in turn, advised BOC that Enghouse was “unaware of any quotes that were sent to your business from their office.”  Email from Agency to Awardee, Sept. 14, 2018.  BOC notified the agency that it received the quote through Advanced Communications Systems (ACS), which is an authorized reseller of Enghouse software licenses, and that BOC is an “authorized sales agent” for ACS.  Email from BOC to Agency, Sept. 14.  The agency then contacted Enghouse, inquiring as to the status of ACS as an authorized Enghouse reseller.  Email from Agency to Enghouse, Sept. 17.  Enghouse responded that Advanced Communication was an Enghouse authorized reseller.  Email from Enghouse to Agency, Sept. 18.  The agency issued the PO to BOC. IC filed an agency-level protest of the issuance of the PO, asserting that BOC did not have a relationship with Enghouse.  Agency-Level Protest, Sept. 25, at 2.  The agency denied the protest, disagreeing with the protester that BOC was ineligible for award for failing to have a direct relationship with Enghouse.  Letter from Agency to IC, Sept. 28.  The agency argued that the solicitation did not require the WOSB awardee to have a “direct relationship with Enghouse,” because the RFQ did not “preclude or prevent” a WOSB from partnering with another entity to meet the solicitation’s requirements.  Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION IC asserts that BOC is ineligible for award where BOC is not an Enghouse authorized reseller, notwithstanding BOC’s relationship with ACS.  The protester argues that the solicitation does not permit a vendor to satisfy the terms of the RFQ through an agency relationship with an authorized reseller.  Where a protester and agency disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that reasonably gives effect to all its provisions.  McLaurin Gen. Maint., Inc., B-411443.2, B‑411443.3, Jan.