Analytica LLC (12314420Q0034)

B-418966 Nov 09, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Analytica LLC, of Washington, D.C., a small business, protests the issuance of a federal supply schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to RIVA Solutions, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314420Q0034, issued by the Department of Agriculture for commercial Drupal content management software services. Analytica argues that Agriculture misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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:  Analytica, LLC File:  B-418966 Date:  November 9, 2020 Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Jonathan I. Pomerance, Esq., and Anna R. Wright, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., and Todd M. Garland, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for RIVA Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Matthew Walton, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania  Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency misevaluated quotations for the establishment of blanket purchase agreement is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.   2.  Protest that agency permitted awardee to engage in a “bait-and-switch” of its program manager is denied where solicitation did not limit substitution of qualified key personnel and where the individual was proposed in good faith and there was intention that he perform.  DECISION   Analytica LLC, of Washington, D.C., a small business, protests the issuance of a federal supply schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to RIVA Solutions, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314420Q0034, issued by the Department of Agriculture for commercial Drupal[1] content management software services.  Analytica argues that Agriculture misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued in two phases, anticipated issuance of a single BPA to the vendor whose quotation offered the best value under a performance-price tradeoff.  Phase I of the RFQ was posted on the General Services Administration’s e-Buy portal, and invited schedule vendors that were participants in the 8(a) Program to identify their interest.  Phase II involved a multi-step process of obtaining and evaluating information from vendors.  This protest concerns phase II and its several steps. Vendors were required to submit “prior experience” information.  Vendors were to identify prior experience on at least two contracts/task orders, within the previous 3 years, which could “include ONLY one instance” of demonstrated prior experience from the prime’s major subcontractor providing Drupal content services.  RFQ at 8.  Vendors were encouraged to identify experience in management and coordination of multiple support teams and subcontractor relationships that resulted in “achieving quality performance under contracts that were of a comparable magnitude, size, scope and complexity to the services described in the PWS [performance work statement].”  Id.  Each submission was to be assessed a confidence rating based on complexity, magnitude, similarity, and scope as compared to the Drupal content services described in the PWS.  Id. at 8.  Agriculture would use this rating to prepare an advisory down‑select that would inform each vendor of the agency’s view on whether that vendor should continue to participate in the competition.  RFQ at 7.  Vendors electing to continue were scheduled to make an oral presentation, which would conclude with a question and answer session.  Id. at 9.  The oral presentation instructions advised that “Vendor Key Positions (Program Manager and Lead Drupal Architect) shall be the main presenters during the Oral Presentation.”  Id. at 9.  The oral presentation was to consider the vendor’s “scenario solution content,” which would be evaluated to produce a second confidence rating.  Id. at 11‑12.  The evaluators were to combine the two confidence ratings into a single “Cumulative Confidence Rating.”  Id. at 11.  Vendors were also required to submit a price quotation to provide pricing for a base year and one option year of operations and maintenance (O&M) services, which would be used for evaluation purposes; pricing was also required for the placement of orders beyond the initial task order.  Id.