The Green Technology Group, LLC

B-417368,B-417368.2 Jun 14, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Green Technology Group, LLC (TGTG), a small business located in Fairfax Station, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to LinTech Global, Inc., a small business located in Farmington Hills, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT0015-19-R-0004, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Health Agency (DHA), for code maintenance and data processing operations support. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's price quotation, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors under the non-price factors, and contends that the best-value tradeoff analysis was flawed. 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: The Green Technology Group, LLC File: B-417368; B-417368.2 Date: June 14, 2019 Todd R. Overman, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Sylvia Yi, Esq., and Taylor Hillman, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for the protester. Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and William J. Beckley, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for LinTech Global, Inc., the intervenor. Kevin E. Bolin, Esq., Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's price quotation is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's pricing would not result in the agency paying an unreasonably high price for contract performance and where the solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation. 2. Protest challenging agency's technical evaluation is denied where the agency evaluated quotations in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and did not treat vendors unequally. 3. Errors in an agency's technical and past performance evaluations do not provide a basis to sustain a protest, where the errors did not affect the agency's best-value tradeoff determination and therefore did not prejudice the protester. DECISION The Green Technology Group, LLC (TGTG), a small business located in Fairfax Station, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to LinTech Global, Inc., a small business located in Farmington Hills, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT0015-19-R-0004, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Health Agency (DHA), for code maintenance and data processing operations support. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's price quotation, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors under the non-price factors, and contends that the best-value tradeoff analysis was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2018, the RFQ was issued to holders of a General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule 70 federal supply schedule contract, seeking the issuance of a fixed-price task order. The solicitation sought performance-based, commercial services for code maintenance and data processing operations support for DHA's health information technology directorate, solutions delivery division (SDD) program executive office. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 2. The RFQ anticipated that the resulting task order would have a 9-month base period, one 12-month option period, and an optional extension period of 6 months. AR, Tab 10, RFQ, at 3-18. The PWS included estimated workload data with labor categories and estimated hours for the base and option period. PWS at 109-111. The solicitation contemplated that the task order would be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFQ at 31. Under the evaluation criteria, the technical factor was significantly more important than the past performance and price factors. Id. Past performance, in turn, was slightly more important than price. Id. The technical evaluation factor consisted of two subfactors, technical approach and management approach, with the former being more important than the latter. Id. With respect to technical approach, the solicitation anticipated that the agency would evaluate the vendor's level of understanding of the required tasks, the feasibility of the intended approach, the completeness of that approach and the likelihood of successful accomplishment of tasks within the required timeframe. Id. at 33. The evaluation of each vendor's management approach, in turn, would examine the vendor's chain of command practices and its approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing proposed subcontractors. Id.