Lamb Informatics, Ltd. (ID11190052)

B-418405.5,B-418405.6 Mar 05, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lamb Informatics Limited, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Pyramid Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID11190052, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for information technology (IT) support services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency under the management approach evaluation factor. The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency's evaluation and award decision. 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:  Lamb Informatics, Ltd. File:  B-418405.5; B-418405.6 Date:  March 5, 2021 Lawrence P. Block, Esq., and Elizabeth G. Leavy, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Krista A. Nunez, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Caleb E. McCallum, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Pyramid Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Jackson Reams, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s assessment of a deficiency under the management approach factor is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. 2.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge other aspects of the evaluation where its quotation was reasonably evaluated as ineligible for award. DECISION Lamb Informatics Limited, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Pyramid Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. ID11190052, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for information technology (IT) support services.  The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency under the management approach evaluation factor.  The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND GSA issued the solicitation via the agency’s e-Buy website on November 8, 2019, seeking quotations to provide IT support services in for HUD’s Office of the Chief Information Officer.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ at 1-5; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFQ was issued under GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures.  RFQ at 3.  The RFQ contemplated the establishment of at least eight blanket purchase agreements (BPA), on a lowest-priced technically acceptable basis, with vendors holding contracts under schedule No. 70, special item number (SIN) 132-51 for IT Professional Services.  Id. at 1-3, 93.  The RFQ anticipated that the agency would issue a total of at least six task orders under the established BPAs, with each task order supporting a specific set of program offices within HUD, categorized as program office groupings (POG).  Id. at 5.  The RFQ also contemplated the issuance of two task orders concurrent with the establishment of the BPAs, one in support of POG five, multi‑family housing, and another in support of POG six, single family housing.  Id. at 3, 5.  Only the task order referred to as the POG six task order--a time-and-materials and labor-hour task order for IT operations and maintenance tasks in support of POG six, single family housing--is at issue in this protest.  See RFQ at 5, 31; see also AR, Exh. 2, Technical Evaluation Plan at 1-2.  The RFQ provided for award of the POG six task order on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following three non-price factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and, (3) key personnel.  Id. at 93-94, 97.  For purposes of performing the best-value tradeoff, the non-price factors were to be weighted equally, and when combined were considered equally important to price.  Id. at 93.  When conducting its evaluation of quotations, the agency would assign each non-price factor an adjectival rating of excellent, good, acceptable, or not acceptable.  AR, Exh.