SNAP, Inc. (127604-19-Q-0010)

B-418525,B-418525.2 Jun 05, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SNAP, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, not to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the company under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 127604-19-Q-0010, seeking a range of information technology (IT) support services. SNAP alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated SNAP's technical quotation and engaged in misleading discussions and disparate treatment regarding SNAP's price quotation. 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:  SNAP, Inc. File:  B-418525; B-418525.2 Date:  June 5, 2020 Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., and Eric A. Ashby II, Esq, Crowell & Moring LLP, for Accenture Federal Services, LLC; and J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Taylor Hillman, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenors. Azine Farzami, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency conducted misleading discussions because it did not inform the protester that its labor rates were considered unreasonable is denied where record shows that prior to discussions, the agency concluded in its price evaluation only that protester’s initial quoted rates were high. 2.  Protest that agency engaged in disparate treatment with regard to the price evaluation is denied where record shows the difference in evaluations was a result of a difference in quotations. 3.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of its technical quotation where protester would not be in line for award because agency reasonably determined that the protester’s final price quotation was not fair and reasonable. DECISION   SNAP, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, not to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the company under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 127604-19-Q-0010, seeking a range of information technology (IT) support services.  SNAP alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated SNAP’s technical quotation and engaged in misleading discussions and disparate treatment regarding SNAP’s price quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8, seeking quotations from vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) 70 IT contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ at 2.  The RFQ sought to establish multiple BPAs to provide a broad range of IT support services for all agencies and offices within the Department of Agriculture.  Id. at 5.  The Forest Service is the lead agency in establishing and administering the BPAs, but any agency or office within Agriculture would be able to issue an order against the BPAs.  Id.  The BPAs were to be established from two pools:  one restricted to small businesses and the other unrestricted (businesses of any size were allowed to compete).  Id.  This protest involves the unrestricted pool.[1] The RFQ stated that the basis for establishing a BPA would be determined by the highest technically rated vendors with fair and reasonable prices.  Id.