Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (34300019Q007)

B-417846.4,B-417846.5 Apr 23, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the award of a contract to Heritage Reporting Corp., also a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 34300019Q0017, for court reporting services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and award decision. 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:  Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. File:  B-417846.4; B-417846.5 Date:  April 23, 2020 Michael D. McGill, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., Sarah A. Hill, Esq., and Christopher D. Garcia, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Heritage Reporting Corp., the intervenor. Charles S. Pino, Esq., and Gina K. Grippando, Esq., United States International Trade Commission, for the agency. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under the technical factor is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging that the awardee would not comply with transcript formatting requirement is dismissed, where the allegation involves matters of contract administration and there is no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to the agency evaluators that should create doubt whether the vendor will or can comply with the requirement.  3.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied, where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and there is no evidence that the evaluators ignored adverse information about which they should have been aware.  4.  Protest alleging that the awardee’s quotation violated the solicitation’s subcontracting limitation clause is denied where the awardee’s quotation did not indicate that the awardee took exception to the limitation.  DECISION Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the award of a contract to Heritage Reporting Corp., also a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 34300019Q0017, for court reporting services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation and award decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On June 6, 2019, the USITC issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside pursuant to the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6. Agency Report (AR), Tab A, RFQ at 2, Joint Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.[1]  The RFQ sought quotations to provide court reporting services to support the USITC’s legal proceedings.  RFQ at 3.  The USITC is an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency with broad investigative responsibilities on matters of trade.  Id.  The USITC investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on domestic industries and conducts global safeguard investigations.  Id.  The USITC also adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights.  Id.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-unit-price, time-and-materials contract, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 2, 21.  The successful vendor would provide the court reporting services at no cost to the agency and would instead receive compensation through the sale of transcripts and real-time services to the parties who appear before the USITC.  Id. at 2; COS/MOL at 3.  On June 25, the agency amended the RFQ to provide answers to vendors’ questions.  AR, Tab A, RFQ amend. 001 at 55-59; AR, Tab G, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 2.  The RFQ provided that award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation provided the best overall value to the government, price and other factors considered.  RFQ, at 21.  The solicitation anticipated consideration of the following factors:  technology, past performance, and price.  Id. at 20-23.  The technical factor included three subfactors:  use of technology, management plan, and technical approach.  Id.