VariQ Corporation

B-417135,B-417135.2,B-417135.3,B-417135.4,B-417135.5 Mar 18, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VariQ Corporation, of Washington, D.C., and Octo Consulting Group, Inc. (Octo), of Reston, Virginia, protest the issuance of a task order to Slalom LLC, of Tysons Corner, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70SBUR18Q00000248, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for services to support USCIS Information Technology (IT) system delivery by performing cloud replacement of legacy systems involving heavy customer engagement. We sustain in part and deny in part VariQ's protest, and dismiss Octo's 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: VariQ Corporation; Octo Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-417135; B-417135.2; B-417135.3; B-417135.4; B-417135.5 Date: March 18, 2019 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Tracye W. Howard, Esq., Colin J. Cloherty, Esq., and Martha G. Vázquez, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for VariQ Corporation; and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Christian N. Curran, Esq., Lauren H. Williams, Esq., and Puja Satiani, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Octo Consulting Group, Inc., the protesters. Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., Christopher A. Vandervoort, Esq., and Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for Slalom, LLC, the intervenor. John Cornell, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of key personnel in Step 1 of a two-step evaluation is sustained, where the record shows that the agency unreasonably concluded that a proposed key person's resume met the solicitation's minimum qualifications based solely on the "TEC's [technical evaluation committee] experience." 2. Protest of the agency's evaluation and award decision in Step 2 of the evaluation is dismissed as academic based on the agency's improper evaluation of key personnel in the Step 1 evaluation. DECISION VariQ Corporation, of Washington, D.C., and Octo Consulting Group, Inc. (Octo), of Reston, Virginia, protest the issuance of a task order to Slalom LLC, of Tysons Corner, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70SBUR18Q00000248, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for services to support USCIS Information Technology (IT) system delivery by performing cloud replacement of legacy systems involving heavy customer engagement. We sustain in part and deny in part VariQ's protest, and dismiss Octo's protest. BACKGROUND On June 27, 2018, the RFQ was issued to holders of General Services Administration Schedule 70 Special Item Number 132-51 contracts, in accordance with the ordering procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 8.405.1 Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1. The RFQ's performance work statement (PWS) provides that the solicitation effort referred to as the verification future (VER Future) project, at issue here, will consist of teams to provide development, security, and operations (DevSecOps) services through a large-scale enterprise cloud solution. RFQ, PWS at 37. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order. RFQ at 23.2 Quotations were due by July 11. Id. at 25. The RFQ identified four evaluation factors: relevant experience, staffing approach, technical demonstration, and price. Id. at 26-30. The non-price factors would be assigned adjectival ratings, which were, from highest to lowest, good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory. Id. at 35. As relevant here, the RFQ established that an unsatisfactory rating reflected a quotation that failed to meet requirements and contained one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the quotation, and would be considered ineligible for award. Id. The RFQ contemplated a two-step approach to evaluating quotations. Id. at 34. In Step 1, the agency would consider relevant experience and staffing approach, and whether offered prices were fair and reasonable, to determine which firms would be invited to participate in the technical demonstration in Step 2. Id. In this evaluation, relevant experience would be more important than staffing. Id. The agency would select the three quotations with the highest technical ratings and fair and reasonable prices to proceed to the technical demonstration in Step 2. Id. The RFQ advised firms that a tradeoff analysis would not be conducted in Step 1. Id. In Step 2, relevant experience and staffing approach would not be considered. Id.