Exceed LLC (70Z02320QMMZ11100)

B-419010 Nov 17, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Exceed, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Lanham, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Insight Technology Solutions, Inc., a small business of Bowie, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70Z02320QMMZ11100, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for customer service support at the National Maritime Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Exceed challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and the best-value tradeoff 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:  Exceed, LLC File:  B-419010 Date:  November 17, 2020 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., and Jonathan I. Pomerance, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Stephen Ramaley, Esq., and Roger Abbott, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge PC, for Insight Technology Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Talbot J. Nicholas II, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.  DECISION Exceed, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Lanham, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Insight Technology Solutions, Inc., a small business of Bowie, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70Z02320QMMZ11100, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for customer service support at the National Maritime Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia.  Exceed challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2020, the Coast Guard issued the RFQ under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4 to vendors holding the General Services Administration’s professional services schedule contracts, special item number 874-7, for integrated business program support services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ Amend. 2 at 2.[1]  The solicitation was set aside for small businesses, under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611, administrative management and general management consulting services, and anticipated award of a single fixed-price task order for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  Id.  The RFQ provided for evaluation using a two-phase advisory down-select process.  Id.  In phase 1, the agency would evaluate vendors’ technical approach quotations; after evaluating those quotations, the agency would invite the most highly rated vendors to proceed to phase 2.  Id.  In phase 2, vendors were to submit their management approach and price quotations.  Id. at 3.  Relevant to the protest, the agency’s evaluation of the management approach factor would result in the assignment of a confidence rating:  high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.  Id. at 8-9. The solicitation advised that the task order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government based on the following evaluation factors:  technical approach, management approach, and price.  Id. at 10-11.  The technical approach factor was more important than the management approach factor, and the technical factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 11.  As relevant to this protest, vendors were instructed to address five topics in their management approach quotations:  (1) management plan; (2) quality control plan (QCP); (3) staffing plan; (4) transition plan; and (5) key personnel.  Id. at 6-7.  A vendor’s management plan had to “include the [proposed] approach to effectively manage personnel working on this requirement.”  Id. at 6.  The management plan was also required to “explain [vendors’] communication procedures and organization charts . . . as well as the work process flow for handling any performance issues.”  Id. at 6.  As relevant here, the RFQ advised that the agency would “evaluate how well the [o]fferor explains . . . the effectiveness of their work process flow for handling performance issues.”  Id. at 9. In addition to the management plan, vendors were instructed to provide a draft QCP in their management approach quotations.  Id.