People, Technology and Processes, LLC (W9124L-20-R0016)

B-418726.5,B-418726.6 Aug 17, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights People, Technology & Processes, LLC (PTP), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Cornerstone Signals & Cyber Technologies, LLC (Cornerstone), an SDVOSB of Christoval, Texas, by the Department of the Army under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124L20R0016, for personnel to support the joint fire support specialist (13F) course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of quotations was flawed because it did not include a price realism analysis, and that a latent ambiguity in the solicitation prevented vendors from competing on an equal basis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  People, Technology and Processes, LLC File:  B-418726.5; B-418726.6 Date:  August 17, 2021 Victor L. Buonamia, for the protester. Major Mark T. Robinson, and Major Aaron K. McCartney, Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., Edward Goldstein, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest arguing that an agency’s evaluation of quotations conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222‑46 is insufficient to satisfy the solicitation’s express requirement to conduct a price realism analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the unique solicitation at issue, and the protester fails to demonstrate competitive prejudice. DECISION People, Technology & Processes, LLC (PTP), a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Cornerstone Signals & Cyber Technologies, LLC (Cornerstone), an SDVOSB of Christoval, Texas, by the Department of the Army under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124L20R0016, for personnel to support the joint fire support specialist (13F)[1] course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of quotations was flawed because it did not include a price realism analysis, and that a latent ambiguity in the solicitation prevented vendors from competing on an equal basis.[2] We deny the protest.  Background The Army issued the RFQ through the General Services Administration’s (GSA) e‑Buy system using the Federal Supply Schedule procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, and the commercial item procedures of FAR part 12.  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Conformed RFQ at 82.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 1‑year base period and one 1‑year option period.  Conformed RFQ at 36. The RFQ sought quotations to provide 15 fully qualified personnel to instruct the resident and mobile training team 13F courses based at Fort Sill.[3]  Id.  Vendors were instructed to prepare their quotations using a baseline of 1,920 labor hours per year so the agency would have a common baseline for comparing the relative prices of quotations.  Id. at 80.  The solicitation established minimum instructor qualifications which included minimum experience requirements in specified occupations.  For example, the RFQ explained that all 13F instructors shall have a minimum of three years of experience as a joint fire support specialist, and at least one year of experience with Army equipment used within the 13F MOS.  Id. at 37. The solicitation described “the full spectrum of training” as including, but not being limited to, “classroom, hands‑on, simulation/virtual, field environment and exercises, combat scenario driven,” and performing safety observation tasks during live fire exercises.  Id. at 39.  In addition to the primary tasks associated with delivering 13F instruction such as teaching from the approved plan of instruction, ensuring course surveys are completed, and evaluating students’ performance, the prospective instructors would also be required to perform secondary tasks such as performing preventive maintenance on assigned equipment, keeping vehicles clean, and assisting in the review and development of course material.  Id. at 39‑44.  The RFQ explained that the government would furnish office space, supplies, telephone service, workstations, computers, system access, and storage space for the prospective contractor.  Id. at 44. The RFQ included only one evaluation factor, price, and stated that the Army would issue a task order to the vendor whose quotation would be most advantageous to the government considering price alone.  Id. at 82.  The RFQ’s anticipated evaluation of price read, in relevant part, as follows: The Government will evaluate [vendors’] prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.  Prices evaluated as incomplete, unbalanced, unrealistically high or low . . .