Knight Point Systems, LLC (70Z07920QPT203400)

B-418746 Aug 24, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Knight Point Systems, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard's decision to exclude Knight Point's quotation from further consideration under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70Z07920QPT203400, issued by the United States Coast Guard, for infrastructure management services (IMS). The protester argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that the quotation had been submitted by Knight Point's parent company, Perspecta, Inc., instead of by Knight Point, and therefore, that Knight Point was ineligible for award. We sustain 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:  Knight Point Systems, LLC File:  B-418746 Date:  August 24, 2020 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., and Gabrielle D. Trujillo, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Shandra J. Kotzun, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s decision to exclude quotation from consideration is sustained where record shows that quotation was eliminated based on considerations not contemplated by the solicitation’s requirements. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s decision to exclude quotation from consideration is sustained where record shows that the agency’s conclusion regarding the identity of the entity submitting the quotation is not supported by the record. DECISION   Knight Point Systems, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard’s decision to exclude Knight Point’s quotation from further consideration under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70Z07920QPT203400, issued by the United States Coast Guard, for infrastructure management services (IMS).  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that the quotation had been submitted by Knight Point’s parent company, Perspecta, Inc., instead of by Knight Point, and therefore, that Knight Point was ineligible for award. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Coast Guard issued the RFQ on April 6, 2020, for a multi-phase procurement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contracts under Information Technology Schedule 70.  The solicitation contemplates the establishment of two, fixed-price blanket purchasing agreements (BPAs):  the first with a vendor that holds a GSA schedule contract, with four required special item numbers (SINs),[1] to be the team leader responsible for the requirement as a whole (referred to herein as the IMS prime vendor); and the second with a small business vendor that is responsible for providing end user hardware devices (referred to as the hardware vendor).[2]  The solicitation also anticipates the issuance of an initial task order (task order 1) under each BPA.  The combined estimated value of the two BPAs is $969 million.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFQ, amend. 0001, at iv.[3]  The RFQ provides for three evaluation phases:  phase I (prior experience), phase II (technical approach), and phase III (performance and pricing).  Id. at 18.  As relevant here, phase I, prior experience, consists of:  verifying that the IMS prime vendor possesses the four required GSA schedule SINs; confirming the IMS prime vendor meets the RFQ’s small business subcontracting goals requiring that the IMS prime vendor allocate 40 percent of subcontracted dollars to small businesses, not including the dollars allocated to the hardware vendor; and evaluating the IMS prime vendor’s prior experience submission.  Id. at 20-22, 29-30. The RFQ provides, as relevant here, that to be considered for a BPA and task order 1, the IMS prime vendor “shall submit a response for Phase I by the Quote Submission Deadline,” and that “[f]ailure to submit a response in Phase I precludes an IMS prime vendor from participating in Phase II and Phase III.”  Id. at 15.  The solicitation also provides that the IMS prime vendor shall submit a quotation that “clearly, concisely, and accurately describe[s] the IMS prime vendor’s response to the RFQ.”  Id. at 18. For small business subcontracting goals, the solicitation provides:  “If an IMS prime vendor does not have an established GSA Subcontracting Plan, the IMS prime vendor shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan [in accordance with] FAR 52.219‑9(d).”  Id.