American Systems Group (FA4690-19-Q-A035)

B-418535 Jun 09, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Systems Group (ASG), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to Summit Services, Inc., of Black Mountain, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4690-19-Q-A035 by the Department of the Air Force for administrative support services. The protester challenges the agency's decision to reject the firm's quotation as being unrealistic pursuant to a price realism evaluation. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  American Systems Group File:  B-418535 Date:  June 9, 2020 Ritobrata Banerjee, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Capt. Seiji Ohashi, Department of the Air Force, 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 1.  Protest that the agency improperly conducted a price realism evaluation and failed to request additional information from the protester prior to rejecting the firm’s quotation is dismissed where the allegations are untimely challenges to alleged defects evident from the face of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency’s price realism evaluation did not comply with the terms of the solicitation is dismissed as untimely, where the record shows that the protester could have raised the allegation in its initial protest, but failed to do so. DECISION American Systems Group (ASG), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to Summit Services, Inc., of Black Mountain, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4690-19-Q-A035 by the Department of the Air Force for administrative support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s decision to reject the firm’s quotation as being unrealistic pursuant to a price realism evaluation. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on September 16, 2019, as a competitive set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s Historically Underutilized Business Zone program, sought quotations to provide administrative support services, including standardization and evaluation program support, security administration management, as well as personnel and physical security support.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 3, RFQ at 8.[1]  The resulting contract, awarded under the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulations part 13, was to consist of one base year, and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 3-7.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering past performance and price.  Id. at 67. Under the stated evaluation scheme, quotations were to be evaluated first for responsiveness.  Id.  Quotations that were found to be responsive would then be evaluated on price.  The RFQ explained that price would be evaluated as follows: Price Evaluation Standard.  Evaluation of price will consider the total of the annual prices for all contract years (base plus all options, including a possible six-month extension), with each year’s price evaluated as the sum of the prices of all contract line items (CLINs) for that year.  Each CLIN price will be evaluated as the quantity multiplied by the unit price, rounded to the nearest cent.  The Government may determine that a vendor’s quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.  For a price to be determined realistic, the quoter’s total evaluated price will not be less than 25 [percent] of the average of all responsive quotes identified in Step 2. Id. (emphasis added). Next, the agency was to evaluate the lowest priced vendor’s past performance “until an acceptable rating is achieved.”  Id.  An acceptable past performance rating was to be assigned based on an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance where the agency determines that “[b]ased on the quoter’s overall performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.”  Id. at 68.  Finally, the agency was to make a best-value award decision based on the past performance evaluation and a determination that the vendor’s price was fair and reasonable.  Id. at 67.  The solicitation warned that the agency “reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced quote if the lowest priced quote is judged to have a performance rating of unacceptable.”  Id. at 68. Twenty-one quotations were received by the agency, including one from ASG.  AR, Tab 8, Simplified Acquisition Decision Document at 1.  Of the 21 quotations received, six were found to be non-responsive, and were not considered further.  Id.  The agency evaluated responsive quotations to determine whether their proposed prices were balanced and realistic.  Id.