Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC (ID11190022)

B-418290.3,B-418290.4 Feb 27, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Harmonia Holdings Group, LLP, of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID11190022, which was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for information technology services. Harmonia argues that GSA unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate its capability to comply with the accessibility requirements established by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 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 version has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC File:  B-418290.3; B-418290.4 Date:  February 27, 2020 W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Michael W. Rich, Esq., and Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and David S. Cohen, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for FreeAlliance.com, LLC, the intervenor. Jackson Reams, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation as being technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate its capability to comply with certain accessibility requirements established by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is denied because the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Harmonia Holdings Group, LLP, of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID11190022, which was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for information technology services.  Harmonia argues that GSA unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate its capability to comply with the accessibility requirements established by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2019, GSA issued the RFQ in order to establish multiple BPAs for information technology services in support of the HUD Office of the Chief Information Officer.  The agency issued the RFQ pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4 to holders of Information Technology Schedule 70 Federal Supply Schedule contracts.  The RFQ anticipated the establishment of multiple BPAs, including some set aside for small business concerns, with each BPA having a 1-year base ordering period, and four 1-year option periods.  RFQ at 22.[2]  The estimated value of the BPAs is over $327 million, and orders can be placed on a fixed-price or time-and-materials basis.  Id. at 26-27; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 13. The RFQ’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires that all EIT products and services provided under the BPA shall comply with all applicable Section 508 statutory and regulatory requirements.  RFQ at 35-36.  Each vendor’s quotation was to “include a statement indicating its capability to comply with Section 508 requirements throughout its performance of this acquisition in accordance with [PWS] Section 7.6.”  Id. at 47.  GSA was to evaluate an offeror’s quotation to “determine whether it include[d] a statement indicating its capability to comply with Section 508 requirements throughout its performance,” and advised that the failure to provide the required statement indicating the offeror’s capability to comply would result in the quotation’s elimination from further consideration for award.  Id. at 51. Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering three factors:  (1) 508 compliance; (2) key personnel; and (3) similar experience.  Id.