Quanterion Solutions, Inc. (FA8075-20-R-0001)

B-418783 Sep 03, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Quanterion Solutions, Inc., a small business of Utica, New York, protests the award of a contract to SURVICE Engineering Company, a small business of Belcamp, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8075-20-R-0001, issued by Department of the Air Force for research and development services for the Department of Defense (DOD) information analysis center (IAC) basic center of operations (BCO). Quanterion protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance, technical, and price proposals. 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:  Quanterion Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418783 Date:  September 3, 2020 Bret S. Wacker, Esq., Clark Hill PLC, and Evan Rossi, Esq., Rossi & Rossi, for the protester. Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, for the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Lieutenant Colonel Damund E. Williams, Matthew J. Ruane, Esq., and Wilbert W. Edgerton, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.  DECISION Quanterion Solutions, Inc., a small business of Utica, New York, protests the award of a contract to SURVICE Engineering Company, a small business of Belcamp, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8075-20-R-0001, issued by Department of the Air Force for research and development services for the Department of Defense (DOD) information analysis center (IAC) basic center of operations (BCO).  Quanterion protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance, technical, and price proposals.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The IAC BCO contract will consolidate the operation of the following three information analysis centers:  the cybersecurity and information system IAC (CSIAC), the defense systems IAC (DSIAC), and the homeland defense and security IAC (HDIAC).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP amend. 3 at 5.  The IAC BCO contract will be focused on knowledge collection, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination of engineering, scientific and technical information.  Id.  Typical activities include collecting and uploading scientific and technological information into the defense technical information center’s research and engineering gateway, maintaining a presence in the technical community, growing the knowledge repository collection, maintaining a subject matter expert network database, and responding to technical inquires.  Id.  Quanterion is the incumbent contractor for the CSIAC and HDIAC contracts.  AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 2. The RFP, issued on November 13, 2019, was set-aside for small businesses and provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 90-day transition period for each of the three IACs, a two-year base period, two two-year options periods, and six one-month extension of services periods.  RFP at 3-6, 31, 66.  The solicitation provided that the contract would be awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  past performance, technical capability (with subfactors for transition, operations approach, and management approach), and cost/price.  RFP amend. 3 at 87.  With respect to the past performance factor, the agency was to evaluate past performance references for recency, relevancy, and quality, and assign an overall confidence rating.  Id. at 88.  Only offers that the agency assigned a past performance confidence rating of satisfactory or substantial would be considered for award.  Id. at 87.  With respect to the transition subfactor of the technical capability factor, the agency was to evaluate offers as either acceptable or unacceptable.  Id.  For the operations approach and management approach subfactors, the agency was to assign offers a combined technical/risk rating of outstanding/low risk, good/low to moderate risk, acceptable/moderate risk, or marginal/high risk.  Id. at 92.  With respect to price, offerors completed a cost/price table that was included in the solicitation, which the agency would use to evaluate whether the proposed cost/price was fair and reasonable, balanced and realistic.  Id. at 95. The past performance and technical capability factors were considered of equal importance, and when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.