22nd Century Technologies, Inc.

B-418029,B-418029.2,B-418029.3 Dec 26, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Deloitte Consulting, LLP, of Arlington, Virginia under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605DC-19-Q-00006, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), for enterprise-wide support services. 22nd Century argues that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable, the agency treated vendors disparately, and the best-value tradeoff 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:  22nd Century Technologies, Inc. File:  B-418029; B-418029.2; B-418029.3 Date:  December 26, 2019 Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Todd M. Garland, Esq., and Nora K. Brent, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., Katie A. Calogero, Esq., and Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton LLP, for Deloitte Consulting, LLP, the intervenor. Jose Otero, Esq., and Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation and selection of higher-rated, higher-priced quotation is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and selection were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.  DECISION 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Deloitte Consulting, LLP, of Arlington, Virginia under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605DC-19-Q-00006, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), for enterprise-wide support services.  22nd Century argues that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable, the agency treated vendors disparately, and the best-value tradeoff was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on January 1, 2019 to establish a BPA against the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures for enterprise-wide support for DOL’s cybersecurity and information assurance and program integration support services for department-wide information technology (IT) initiatives.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFQ at 9.[2]  The RFQ stated that the agency would establish a BPA with one 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods using a best-value tradeoff considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 9, 100.  The technical factor included the following five equally weighted subfactors:  understanding of the requirement, key personnel, corporate experience, start-up/phase-out plan, and quality control plan.  Id. at 100-102.  The RFQ stated that the technical factor was significantly more important than the past performance factor, and that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 100.  The RFQ also stated that the agency would evaluate vendors’ price quotations for reasonableness and completeness, and that vendors’ total proposed price would be utilized in the tradeoff.  Id. at 102.  The agency received five quotations, including quotations from 22nd Century and Deloitte, which were evaluated as follows:   22nd Century Deloitte Technical  Acceptable Good Understanding of the Requirement Acceptable Good Key Personnel Acceptable Good Corporate Experience Acceptable Good Start-Up/Phase-Out Plan Acceptable Acceptable Quality Control Plan Acceptable Good Past Performance Good/Low Risk Good/Low Risk Total Proposed Price $111,994,220 $137,366,343 AR, Tab 14, Award Decision Document (ADD), at 2, 3.  The contracting officer, who served as the selection official, reviewed the technical evaluation panel’s (TEP) consensus evaluation under the technical factor, performed a price analysis and a past performance evaluation, and conducted a comparative assessment between the vendors.  The contracting officer identified discriminators between the quotations; found that Deloitte’s quotation was superior to 22nd Century’s quotation under the understanding of the requirements, key personnel, corporate experience and quality control plan subfactors; and concluded that Deloitte’s technical superiority was worth the price premium over 22nd Century’s quotation.  Id.