ASI Government, Inc. (TIB-2020-RFQ-0021)

B-419080.2,B-419080.3 Jun 24, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASI Government, LLC (ASI), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Delta Resources, Inc. (Delta), of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. TIB-2020-RFQ-0021, for acquisition and procurement business support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations, and alleges that the source selection decision was unreasonable. 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:  ASI Government, Inc. File:  B-419080.2; B-419080.3 Date:  June 24, 2021 Tamara McNulty, Esq., and James Dougherty, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Delta Resources, Inc., the intervenor. Jon Gottschalk, Esq., Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging disparate treatment in the agency’s technical evaluation of quotations is denied where the record shows that the competing quotations were substantively distinguishable, and the protester has not shown that the technical evaluation results were not the result of the substantive differences in the competing quotations. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and the awardee’s quotations is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision as unreasonable and not sufficiently documented is denied where the record shows that the source selection decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that the agency’s documentation was sufficient to allow our Office to review its judgments and conclusions for reasonableness. DECISION   ASI Government, LLC (ASI), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Delta Resources, Inc. (Delta), of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. TIB‑2020‑RFQ‑0021, for acquisition and procurement business support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations, and alleges that the source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest.  Background The FRTIB was established by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERSA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8401‑8479, as a self‑funded agency with independent budgetary authority that receives no annual appropriations from Congress.  Thrift Federal Acquisition Supplement, Oct. 1, 2018, at Preamble.  Due to FRTIB’s unique status, it is not strictly bound by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); however, the agency has determined that its procurements will largely adhere to the FAR unless doing so could infringe upon its fiduciary obligations under FERSA.  Id.  The FRTIB issued the RFQ on June 17, 2020, under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of FAR subpart 8.4, seeking quotations for advisory and assistance support for acquisition and procurement business operations.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFQ amend. 02 at 1, 3.  The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single‑award BPA with a base period of 12 months and four 12‑month option periods.  Id. at 20.  Orders issued under the BPA would be either fixed‑price or time‑and‑materials.  Id. at 15.  The RFQ required quotations to be submitted in the following three volumes:  (1) technical/management approach; (2) project experience; and (3) price.  Id. at 53.  Each volume was to be evaluated independently.  Id.  The technical/management approach volume focused on the performance of the instant procurement, while the project experience volume required vendors to describe and support their past performance.  See id. at 53‑54.  The RFQ advised that the evaluation of quotations would consider the relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, experience described, and proposed price of each quotation.  Id. at 55.  Award was to be made using a best‑value tradeoff, considering technical/management approach, project experience, and price, where the technical/management approach factor was slightly more important than the project experience factor, and where the non‑price factors, when combined, were “of greater importance” than price.  Id. at 56.  Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness.  Id.