Diversified Services Group, Inc.

B-418375.2 May 28, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Diversified Services Group, Inc., a small business of Germantown, Maryland, protests the award of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) task order to Integrity National Corporation, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605DC-19-R-00055, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for janitorial and snow removal services at the Department of Labor's Frances Perkins Building in Washington, D.C. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable. 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:  Diversified Services Group, Inc. File:  B-418375.2 Date:  May 28, 2020 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., and Andres Vera, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for Integrity National Corporation, the intervenor. Joon Hong, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable in light of the protester’s failure to submit an adequately written quotation. DECISION   Diversified Services Group, Inc., a small business of Germantown, Maryland, protests the award of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) task order to Integrity National Corporation, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605DC-19-R-00055, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for janitorial and snow removal services at the Department of Labor’s Frances Perkins Building in Washington, D.C.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8, the DOL issued the RFQ for janitorial and snow removal services to be provided over a one-year base period and up to four option years.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFQ at 1, 25, 86.  Award was to be made to the firm whose quotation was most advantageous to the government considering three evaluation factors:  technical/management approach, past performance, and price.  Id. at 86.  The technical/management factor was more important than the past performance factor and, when combined, both were equally as important as price.  Id.  The technical/management approach factor was comprised of two subfactors, one of which, management approach, is at issue here.  Under the management approach subfactor, the RFQ stated that quotations must demonstrate defined lines of authority and details of on-site personnel by skill mix, function and numbers.  Id.  The solicitation identified two positions as key personnel:  the project manager and the on-site contractor supervisor.  Id; see also AR, exh. 8, RFQ amend. 2 at 31-32.  Resumes, and written, signed, and dated letters of commitment, were required to be submitted for both of these positions.  AR, exh.1 at 86-87.  The solicitation explained that a quotation could be rejected if it does not include a firm commitment from the people proposed for these positions.  AR, exh. 8 at 35.  The solicitation provided that any quotation that failed to address critical elements of the solicitation may be considered indicative of the vendor’s lack of understanding of the agency’s requirements and may not be considered for award.  AR, exh. 1 at 86.  On October 10, amendment 0001 was issued which, among other things, included a revised pricing sheet that eliminated a line item for emergency and contingency custodian services.  AR, exh. 7, RFQ amend. 1, attach. 3, at 1.  The agency received quotations from six firms by the closing date of October 22, including one from Diversified.  Following an evaluation, the contracting officer determined that Diversified’s quotation was ineligible for award.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5.  Although Diversified’s quotation was deemed technically acceptable, the contracting officer found that the firm failed to use the revised pricing sheet issued as part of amendment 0001.  COS at 5; AR, exh.