T-Mobile USA, Inc. (9594CS20Q0004)

B-418394 Apr 08, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights T-Mobile USA, Inc., of Bellevue, Washington, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 9594CS20Q0004 issued by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the provision of cellular services on a brand-name or equal basis. The protester argues that the solicitation fails to adequately identify the salient characteristics necessary for the brand name or equal requirement, and that the requirement is unduly restrictive of competition. 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:  T-Mobile USA, Inc. File:  B-418394 Date:  April 8, 2020 Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Amy Conant Hoang, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., and Sarah F. Burgart, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for the protester. Marvelle Butler, Esq., Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging terms of the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the challenged solicitation provisions adequately identify the salient characteristics of the brand name or equal requirement and are not unduly restrictive of competition. DECISION T-Mobile USA, Inc., of Bellevue, Washington, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 9594CS20Q0004 issued by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the provision of cellular services on a brand-name or equal basis.  The protester argues that the solicitation fails to adequately identify the salient characteristics necessary for the brand name or equal requirement, and that the requirement is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND CSOSA is an independent federal agency providing probation and parole supervision services in the District of Columbia.  Among other things, the agency is required to “monitor the activities of its offenders at all times, maintain communication with [law enforcement], and carry out local safety initiatives.”  Agency Req. for Dismissal at 6.  The RFQ, issued on December 9, 2019, using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, sought quotations from vendors holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 70 (Information Technology) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ, at 3.  The solicitation was further restricted to FSS contract holders with a “public safety plan” under special item number (SIN) 132‑53 (Wireless Mobility Solutions).[1]  Id. at 1.  The resulting task order was to consist of a 1-year base period and four 1-year options, each with a single contract line item number (CLIN) for cellular services with enhanced priority-type features, which the agency identifies as “AT&T FirstNet or equal.”  Id. at 2. The agency amended the solicitation twice.[2]  The first amendment was issued to incorporate pages that were missing from the RFQ.  See AR, Tab 5, Amendment 0001.  The second amendment was issued to incorporate various changes to the solicitation, including answers to questions asked by various vendors.  AR, Tab 6, Questions from Verizon Wireless; Tab 7, Questions from T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Tab 8, Amendment 0002.  As relevant to this protest, amendment 0002 revised the salient characteristics required by the solicitation, based on questions the agency had received from vendors.  See AR, Tab 8, Amendment 0002, at 3-4.  After the issuance of the second amendment, T‑Mobile filed this protest with our Office, challenging the terms of the solicitation. DISCUSSION T-Mobile challenges the solicitation in two respects.  First, the protester argues that the “technical requirements are ambiguous and fail to clearly identify the salient characteristics of the brand name item (FirstNet).”  Protest at 7-10.  Second, T-Mobile contends that the “requirements for a private network with priority and pre-emptive capabilities are unduly restrictive.”  Id. at 10-18.  We have considered all of the protester’s allegations and find that they do not afford a basis on which to sustain the protest.  We address each argument, in turn. Interested Party As a preliminary matter, we address the agency’s contention that T-Mobile is not an interested party to bring the protest before our Office.  Specifically, the agency argues that because T-Mobile does not have a public safety plan, nor does the firm provide preemptive and priority cellular services for public safety organizations, it cannot be a prospective bidder and does not have the requisite direct economic interest in the procurement to be an interested party to protest.  Req.