Systems Integration & Development, LLC (1354981)

B-417858.6,B-417858.8,B-417858.11 Nov 02, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Systems Integration & Development, LLC (SID), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1354981, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for information technology support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical quotation and argues that the evaluation reflects disparate treatment. 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:  Systems Integration & Development, LLC File:  B-417858.6; B-417858.8; B-417858.11 Date:  November 2, 2020 David B. Dixon, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., and Robert Starling, Esq., Pillsbury, Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for AttainX, Inc.; David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Lynker Technologies, LLC; Terry L. Elling, Esq., and Kelsey M. Hayes, Holland & Knight LLP, for Veteran Technology Integrators, LLC; and Lee Dougherty, Esq., and Everett Dougherty, Esq., Effectus PLLC, for IBSS Corporation, the intervenors. Ryan Lambrecht, Esq., Department of Commerce, 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 Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Systems Integration & Development, LLC (SID), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1354981, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for information technology support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical quotation and argues that the evaluation reflects disparate treatment. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 30, 2019, NOAA issued the RFQ under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 70 Information Technology contracts.  The RFQ was issued as a small business set-aside.  The solicitation sought to establish multiple BPAs for a 5-year base period and one 5-year option.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFQ at 3, 12.  The estimated volume of purchases under the BPAs will be approximately $2.1 billion over ten (10) years.  Id. at 19. The RFQ provided that BPAs would be established with the highest technically rated vendors with fair and reasonable prices.  Id. at 37.  The agency anticipated the establishment of 10 to 25 BPAs, though it reserved the right to establish more or fewer BPAs, at its discretion.  Id.  The solicitation identified the following three non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical capability, management approach, and past performance.  Id. at 37-38.  The solicitation provided that all factors, other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price, and that the three non-price factors would “play a dominant role in the basis for award.”  Id.  The RFQ also explained, however, that a vendor “whose proposed prices are determined not to be fair and reasonable will not be awarded a BPA” regardless of the evaluation of the non-price factors of the quotation.  Id. at 37. As relevant to this protest, the management approach factor required that a vendor describe its company’s organizational structure, describe its “technical capabilities as the prime,” and describe “the means to be used to provide cross-cutting services” in five identified areas, including performance work statement (PWS) section 3.2.5 – Deployment Support Services.  Id. at 35-36.  The RFQ provided that the government would evaluate, in pertinent part, the “extent to which the [vendor’s] management approach demonstrates capability and expertise to successfully meet the requirements of the cross-cutting services listed in the PWS”.  Id. at 38. For the evaluation of the technical capability factor, the solicitation provided that the vendor “shall provide its corporate experience using the format in [a]ttachment 5,” which consisted of a technical factor matrix organized by the core management components and services areas required by the PWS.  Id.