Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. (19AQMM19Q0177)

B-418377.7,B-418377.8,B-418377.9 Jul 07, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. (BI), of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the Department of State's (DOS) issuance of a task order to Soft Tech Consulting, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM19Q0177, to provide information technology (IT) support services. BI protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process, including challenges to the agency's evaluation under the technical approach and past performance evaluation factors and to the supporting bases for the source selection decision. We sustain 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:  Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418377.7; B-418377.8; B-418377.9 Date:  July 7, 2020 Carla Weiss, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Matthew L. Haws, Esq., and Eric K. Herendeen, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Lisa A Markman, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Soft Tech Consulting, Inc., the intervenor. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Agency’s assessment of the highest past performance rating to awardee was unreasonable where the solicitation required that, to be considered relevant, prior contracts had to be similar in dollar value to that of the competed task order, and the agency relied on awardee’s prior contracts that were valued at a small fraction of the competed task order’s value. 2.  Agency unreasonably assessed a weakness in protester’s quotation based on the agency’s view that activities the quotation characterized as innovative were already being performed under the protester’s incumbent contract.  3.  Agency’s source selection decision unreasonably included consideration of a purported weakness in protester’s quotation that agency now acknowledges is erroneous.  4.  Agency’s best-value tradeoff determination was unreasonable where agency failed to consider total prices, as required by the solicitation. DECISION   Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc. (BI), of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the Department of State’s (DOS) issuance of a task order to Soft Tech Consulting, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM19Q0177, to provide information technology (IT) support services.  BI protests various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process, including challenges to the agency’s evaluation under the technical approach and past performance evaluation factors and to the supporting bases for the source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In August 2019, the State Department issued the RFQ, pursuant to subpart 16.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to contractors holding section 8(a) Streamlined Technology Application Resources for Services (STARS) II government-wide acquisition contracts.[1]  The RFQ contemplated award of a task order[2] to provide IT support services for DOS’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)[3] during a 30-day transition period, a 1-year base period, and four 1-year option periods.[4]  RFQ at 2‑3, 68.  Pursuant to the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS), the contractor will provide IT support for various agency systems, including “SMSeNet”[5] and “CMMS”,[6] and will be required to “install, maintain, support, upgrade [and] monitor” such systems and to “train system users.” Id. at 10.  The solicitation contemplated award of a single task order on the basis of a best-value tradeoff and established the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, personnel qualifications, past performance, and price.  Id. at 126-27. With regard to evaluation under the most important factor, technical approach, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the vendor’s “understanding of, and approach to complete, the work described in the PWS,” elaborating that the evaluation would place “emphasis” on certain areas, including “retention incentives,”[7] and “innovative practices.”[8]  Id.  With regard to evaluation under the past performance factor, the solicitation provided that the agency would consider the “three most recent and relevant examples within the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)” and stated that “[r]elevant is defined as being of similar work type (IT support services), dollar value, and scope.”  Id.