Safal Partners, Inc.

B-416937.3 Jun 26, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Safal Partners, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order (TO) to Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 91990018Q0023, issued by the Department of Education for support of the Charter Schools Program (CSP). Safal contends that the agency engaged in improper discussions when it permitted MSG to make material changes to its quotation without conducting discussions with other vendors, including Safal. 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:  Safal Partners, Inc. File:  B-416937.3 Date:  June 26, 2019 Adam K. Lasky, Esq., David Y. Yang, Esq., and Emily A. Yoshiwara, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for the protester. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC, the intervenor. Michael S. Taylor, Esq., Department of Education, 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 The record does not support the protester’s contention that the agency permitted only the successful vendor to revise its quotation; consequently, we deny the protest that the agency improperly held discussions with the awardee but not the protester. DECISION Safal Partners, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order (TO) to Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 91990018Q0023, issued by the Department of Education for support of the Charter Schools Program (CSP).  Safal contends that the agency engaged in improper discussions when it permitted MSG to make material changes to its quotation without conducting discussions with other vendors, including Safal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price TO under the successful firm’s General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contract to support the CSP by providing technical assistance and disseminating best practices.  Agency Report (AR), Tab A, RFQ at 19.[1]  The TO is referred to as the National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC) contract, on which Safal is the incumbent contractor.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following five technical factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, quality and time commitments of quoted personnel, management plan, organizational capabilities and experience, and vendor past performance.  AR, Tab B, RFQ amend. 0001, at 7-9.  Price was significantly less important than technical merit and would be evaluated for reasonableness.  Id. at 7.  Each of the five technical factors would be evaluated as excellent, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.  Id.  Three vendors, including the protester and the awardee, submitted quotations.  The agency evaluated the technical quotations and assigned the following ratings:   Vendors Factor MSG Safal Vendor C Technical approach Satisfactory Marginal Marginal Quality and time commitments of  quoted personnel Excellent Marginal Marginal Management plan Excellent Satisfactory Marginal Organizational capabilities and experience Excellent Satisfactory Marginal Vendor past performance Excellent Excellent Satisfactory AR, Tab L, Award Summary, at 7.  The agency subsequently provided each of the vendors with Business Questions related to its pricing.  Each vendor was advised that it was required to submit a revised business quotation making specific changes requested by the agency.  AR, Tab J, Business Questions.  Safal’s final price was $42,061,596, and MSG’s was $25,781,177.  AR, Tab L, Award Summary, at 5.  MSG increased its final price slightly from its initial price; Safal decreased its final price by less than two percent from its initial price.[2]  See id.  The TO was issued to MSG as the firm whose quotation represented the best value to the agency, and Safal protested to our Office.  Safal argued that the agency’s technical evaluation was unreasonable, that the agency conducted unfair discussions, and that MSG had an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest (OCI).  With respect to the last allegation, Safal argued that the awardee’s subcontractor, WestEd, had an impaired objectivity OCI because of WestEd’s role in performing the Charter Schools Monitoring and Data Collection (DCM) contract for t...