Kingfisher Systems, Inc.

B-417149,B-417149.2,B-417149.3,B-417149.4,B-417149.5 Apr 01, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kingfisher Systems, Inc., a small business located in Falls Church, Virginia, and Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, protest the establishment of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), a small business located in Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314418Q0055, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for information technology (IT) security services. The protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of quotations under the RFQ's go/no go criteria. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. 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: Kingfisher Systems, Inc.; Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc. File: B-417149; B-417149.2; B-417149.3; B-417149.4; B-417149.5 Date: April 1, 2019 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Kingfisher Systems, Inc.; and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., and Alexandra L. Barbee-Garrett, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., the protesters. Milton C. Johns, Esq., and Emily A. Spence, Esq., FH+H, PLLC, for Customer Value Partners, Inc., the intervenor. Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of experience is denied where the agency reasonably assessed the relevance of the experience as required by the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging technical acceptability of vendor's quotation is denied where agency reasonably determined that information provided in vendor's quotation showed that proposed personnel satisfied the "go/no go" qualifications specified in the solicitation, and thus, evaluation of vendor's quotation as acceptable was reasonable, supported by the record, and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging technical acceptability of awardee's quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and protester's objection to the evaluation reflects the protester's untimely disagreement with the plain, unambiguous language of the solicitation. DECISION Kingfisher Systems, Inc., a small business located in Falls Church, Virginia, and Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, protest the establishment of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), a small business located in Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314418Q0055, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for information technology (IT) security services. The protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of quotations under the RFQ's go/no go criteria. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. BACKGROUND On August 29, 2018, USDA issued the RFQ, as a small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to small business vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) FSS contracts under Information Technology Schedule 70. Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the establishment of a single, fixed-price BPA, for a base year and four 12-month options.1 RFQ at 5, 9. The RFQ anticipated award to the vendor submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) quotation. Id. at 9. The solicitation provided for evaluation under two factors: technical and price. Id. at 8-9. The technical factor was to be evaluated using a go/no go checklist to determine a vendor's understanding of the required services and potential for successfully accomplishing the services described in the performance work statement (PWS). Id. at 10. The RFQ provided that quotations must receive a "go" rating for all of the go/no go criteria to be technically acceptable and considered for award. Id. The go/no go technical checklist was comprised of 27 criteria. Id. at 10-12. Pertinent to the protests here and as discussed in greater detail below, these included criteria pertaining to the vendor's experience and proposed personnel. Id. at 10-11.For the price factor, the RFQ provided that the agency would evaluate all quotations by total price.