D&G Support Services, LLC (70RWMD20Q00000004)

B-419245,B-419245.3 Jan 06, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights D&G Support Services, LLC (D&G), a small business of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Mayvin, Inc., a small business of Annandale, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RWMD20Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for advisory and assistance services to the countering weapons of mass destruction systems support directorate. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of quotations was flawed and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, that DHS unreasonably concluded that the awardee met applicable small business set-aside requirements, and that the appearance of a personal conflict of interest tainted the award. 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:  D&G Support Services, LLC File:  B-419245; B-419245.3 Date:  January 6, 2021 Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Shomari B. Wade, Esq., and Brett Castellat, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Stephanie D. Wilson, Esq., and Terrence M. O’Connor, Esq., Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, for Mayvin, Inc., the intervenor. Christine Fontenelle, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the awardee’s quotation did not comply with the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting provisions is denied where the quotation, on its face, does not show that the awardee has not agreed to comply with the subcontracting limitation, and whether the awardee will comply is a matter of contract administration not for our review. 2.  Protest that evaluator has a personal conflict of interest that precluded an unbiased evaluation is denied where the record does not support the protester’s allegations.  DECISION D&G Support Services, LLC (D&G), a small business of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Mayvin, Inc., a small business of Annandale, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RWMD20Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for advisory and assistance services to the countering weapons of mass destruction systems support directorate.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of quotations was flawed and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, that DHS unreasonably concluded that the awardee met applicable small business set-aside requirements, and that the appearance of a personal conflict of interest tainted the award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2020, DHS issued the solicitation under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP Professional Services Schedule, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  subpart 8.4, as a total small business set-aside.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4; Agency Report (AR), Tab 14a, Conformed RFQ at 1.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single time-and-materials task order, with a 7-month base period, one  5-month option period, four 1-year option periods, and an optional 6‑month extension under FAR clause 52.217‑8, for advisory and assistance services.  Id. at 3.  Specifically, the solicitation sought contractor support for administrative, programmatic, systems engineering, research analysis, test management, and scientific support services to the countering weapons of mass destruction (CWMD) systems support directorate (SSD), in its effort to combat the catastrophic use of a weapon of mass destruction within the United States and its territories.  Id., Statement of Work (SOW) at 14.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical capability and approach; (2) management approach; (3) past performance; and (4) price.  Conformed RFQ at 89-90.  Vendors were advised that, “[w]hen combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price” but that “[a]s quotations near equality in their technical merit, greater will be the importance of price in making the award determination.”  Id. at 90.  The agency utilized an adjectival confidence-rating scheme to evaluate the non-price factors, with three possible ratings:  high confidence; some confidence; and low confidence.[1]  Id. at 94.  The solicitation provided that while a vendor’s price would not be independently rated, it would “be evaluated with respect to completeness and reasonableness based on information submitted in the quoter’s price quotation.”  Id.