Raith Engineering and Manufacturing Company, WLL (HTC71120QW001)

B-419023.4 Jul 19, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raith Engineering & Manufacturing Company W.L.L., of Sharq, Kuwait, protests the award of a fixed-priced contract to Cargo Transport Systems Company (CTS) of Safat, Kuwait, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HTC71120QW001, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for deployment and distribution support services. Raith challenges the evaluation of the awardee's technical approach. 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:  Raith Engineering and Manufacturing Company, WLL File:  B-419023.4 Date:  July 19, 2021 Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for the protester. Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Lana Meller, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for Cargo Transport Systems Company, an intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Rebecca MarquetteTatum, Esq., Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Todd P. Federici, Esq., and Robert D. Bowers, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mercedes Wilson-Barthes and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under a solicitation’s technical factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Raith Engineering & Manufacturing Company W.L.L., of Sharq, Kuwait, protests the award of a fixed-priced contract to Cargo Transport Systems Company (CTS) of Safat, Kuwait, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HTC71120QW001, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for deployment and distribution support services.  Raith challenges the evaluation of the awardee’s technical approach. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 17, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ, which contemplated a fixed-price contract on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 1-7; AR, Tab 9, RFQ Evaluation Criteria at 4.  The RFQ, issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, and FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, sought a contractor to provide deployment and distribution services in support of the 595th Transportation Brigade and support units’ operations missions throughout the USTRANSCOM area of responsibility.  AR, Tab 7, RFQ Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.The agency received eight quotations in response to the RFQ, including those submitted by Raith and CTS.  AR, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2.  On August 13, 2020, the agency awarded the contract to Raith.  AR, Tab 10, Contract Awarded to Raith at 1. CTS subsequently filed two protests with our Office, which were dismissed.[1]  In response to the second of these protests, the agency decided, among other things, to amend the solicitation to remove a requirement that prices be analyzed for realism.  AR, Tab 23, RFQ amend. 1 at 4-5.  The amended RFQ revised the evaluation factors and basis for award.[2]AR, Tab 23, RFQ amend. 1, Evaluation Criteria at 3-5.  The solicitation stated that, as the first step in the evaluation process, the agency would review each quotation for “compliance,” which the RFQ defined as including “the required introductory document and complete technical and price volumes.”  Id. at 5.  The RFQ clarified that only quotations that were found compliant would be evaluated.  Id.  The RFQ provided that the agency would first evaluate the technical volume of the compliant quotation offering the lowest price.  Id.  The technical volume would be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.[3]  Id.  The RFQ stated that “[i]f the quot[ation] with the lowest proposed price is deemed unacceptable for their technical volume, then the next-lowest priced quot[ation]’s technical volume will be evaluated, if deemed compliant.”  Id.  Next, the agency would review the price volume from the vendor that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation to determine whether the price was fair and reasonable, using the guidance provided in section 13.106-2 of the FAR.