Gartner, Inc. (PANMCC-20-P-0000-009326)

B-419190,B-419190.2 Dec 14, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gartner, Inc., of Stamford, Connecticut, protests the issuance of a task order to Forrester Research, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1434815, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology (IT) research and advisory subscription services. Gartner alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Forrester's quotation as technically acceptable. 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:  Gartner, Inc. File:  B-419190; B-419190.2 Date:  December 14, 2020 Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., and Shaunna Bailey, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Lindsay Simmons, Esq., and Hopewell Darneille, Esq., Jackson Kelly PLLC, for Forrester Research, Inc., the intervenor. Major Nichole M. Venious, Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated awardee’s quotation is denied where the agency evaluated the firm’s quotation consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the services offered in awardee’s quotation were not on the firm’s federal supply schedule contract is denied where the agency reasonably interpreted the firm’s schedule contract as including the quoted services.  DECISION   Gartner, Inc., of Stamford, Connecticut, protests the issuance of a task order to Forrester Research, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1434815, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology (IT) research and advisory subscription services.  Gartner alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Forrester’s quotation as technically acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 29, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ to procure IT research and advisory subscription services through the General Service Administration’s e-Buy platform.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFQ at 8.[1]  The RFQ was restricted to holders of Department of Defense (DOD), Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) blanket purchase agreements (BPA), and conducted under the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  Id.  BPAs were issued against vendors’ federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts.  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order to be performed over a 1‑year base period and two 1-year option periods.  RFQ at 8.  The selected vendor would be required to provide research and advisory services covering federal government IT policies and best practices, cybersecurity information assurance, organizational strategy and design, change management, IT operating models, IT program management, and IT strategies.  RFQ at 9.  The selected vendor was required to provide two licenses for agency executive personnel to conduct unlimited IT research in the vendor’s research library.  Id. at 11-12.  Additionally, the selected vendor was required to provide agency executive personnel with access to professional and networking events.  Id. at 10.  Award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis considering technical capability, past performance, and price factors.  RFQ at 14.  For a quotation to be evaluated as technically acceptable, it had to demonstrate the vendor’s ability to meet all of the performance requirements.  Id. at 15. Only Gartner and Forrester submitted quotations prior to the August 19, 2020, closing date.  COS at 2.  The agency’s evaluation identified both quotations as technically acceptable.  AR, Tab 12, Forrester Technical Evaluation at 1; AR, Tab 13, Gartner Technical Evaluation at 1.  Because Forrester quoted a lower price than Gartner ($363,493 vs. $505,128), the agency selected Forrester’s quotation for award.  AR, Tab 14, Simplified Acquisition Price Analysis and Award Memorandum at 3.  The agency then provided Gartner with a brief explanation of award.  AR, Tab 17C, Gartner Debriefing Closing Correspondence at 1.  Gartner asserted to the agency that Forrester’s quotation was not technically acceptable.  COS at 4.  In response, the agency reevaluated Forrester’s quotation, and again concluded that the quotation was technically acceptable.  AR, Tab 18, Technical Evaluator Email and Matrix at 1-2.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Gartner raises multiple allegations arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated Forrester’s quotation as technically acceptable.  Principally, Gartner contends that Forrester’s quotation did not meet mandatory solicitation requirements.  See Comments and Supp.