Spry Methods, Inc. (140D0419Q0011)

B-417800.3 Feb 14, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Spry Methods, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140D0419Q0011, issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for information management and assurance program support services. We dismissed the protest after the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action by reevaluating vendors' quotations and making a new award decision. Spry argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency's corrective action unduly delayed. We grant the request. 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:  Spry Methods, Inc.--Costs File:  B-417800.3 Date:  February 14, 2020 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., and Lyndsay A. Gorton, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Sheryl L. Rakestraw, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency.  Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation of reimbursement of costs of filing and pursuing a protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is granted where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION   Spry Methods, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140D0419Q0011, issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for information management and assurance program support services.  We dismissed the protest after the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action by reevaluating vendors’ quotations and making a new award decision.  Spry argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency’s corrective action unduly delayed. We grant the request. BACKGROUND The RFQ was first issued on October 15, 2018, to holders of General Services Administration 8(a) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resources for Services (STARS) II contracts, which are multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for various information technology services and service-based solutions, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5b, RFQ amend. 2, Standard Form 1449 at 1; Memorandum of Law (MOL) (B-417800) at 1.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a time-and-materials task order for a base year with four 1-year options.  RFQ at 15; MOL (B-417800) at 1.  In general terms, the contractor was to provide qualified personnel, in specified labor categories, to successfully perform the stated performance work statement (PWS) requirements in three task areas:  risk management and information security continuous monitoring; information system security officers and system security; and privacy.  AR, Tab 5b, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 2, PWS at 1; COS (B-417800) at 2. The RFQ established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on two evaluation factors of equal importance:  technical approach and price.  RFQ at 19-20.  The technical approach factor consisted of four subfactors:  (1) understanding of PWS requirements; (2) quality control plan; (3) staffing plan; and (4) key personnel.  Id. at 19; MOL (B-417800) at 3. Twenty vendors, including Spry and CVP, submitted quotations by the December 28 closing date.  COS (B-417800) at 2.  An agency technical evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated vendors’ technical quotations, assigning adjectival ratings (e.g., strong, good) to the technical subfactors, as well as making findings regarding whether the quotations adequately addressed PWS requirements in 90 different areas.  COS (B-417800) at 3.  After completing its initial evaluation, the TEC found that 15 vendors had failed to adequately address the technical approach factor and, on April 10, 2019, these vendors were notified of their elimination from the competition.  AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 5.  On April 18, the contracting officer sent CVP an email communicating the following: The Government has completed the evaluation of your company’s technical . . . quote and noted the following: 1.  Technical Quote:  Vendor depends on [DELETED] . . .