U.S. Information Technologies Corporation (SP4709-20-Q-1022)

B-419265 Nov 17, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights U.S. Information Technologies Corporation (USIT), a small business, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Management Solutions, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4709-20-Q-1022, which was issued for development and sustainment services to support the agency's e-Commerce system. USIT argues that the award to Credence was improper because DLA unreasonably evaluated vendors' quotations, the awardee's proposed personnel were not available to perform, and the award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). We dismiss 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:  U.S. Information Technologies Corporation File:  B-419265 Date:  November 17, 2020 David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Jonathan I. Pomerance, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Credence Management Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Elizabeth Amato, Esq., Gregory Matthews, Michael D. McPeak, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  GAO does not have jurisdiction to hear a protest challenging the issuance of a task order valued below the jurisdictional threshold, based on the additional value of the option to extend services under Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.217-8, where the solicitation did not request pricing for the option and the agency did not include the option in the award. 2.  Argument that the awardee should have quoted a higher price does not provide a basis to find that the value of the task order was higher than the awarded price. 3.  Argument that a task order might have been modified to an amount over the jurisdictional threshold is dismissed where the protester does not establish that the modification in fact took place. DECISION U.S. Information Technologies Corporation (USIT), a small business, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Management Solutions, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4709-20-Q-1022, which was issued for development and sustainment services to support the agency’s e-Commerce system.  USIT argues that the award to Credence was improper because DLA unreasonably evaluated vendors’ quotations, the awardee’s proposed personnel were not available to perform, and the award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).  We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND DLA issued the solicitation April 30, 2020, seeking quotations to provide development and sustainment services in support of the agency’s e-Commerce system, which is known as FedMall.  Agency’s Resp. to GAO Req., Oct. 19, 2020, encl. 1, RFQ at 1, 5.  The protester is the incumbent contractor for these services.  Protest at 2.  The competition was limited to firms that hold an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) J6 Enterprise Technology Services (JETS) contract awarded by DLA.  RFQ at 6.  The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price task order with a base period of 1 year and two 1‑year options.  Id. at 3-4, 8.  As relevant here, the RFQ required vendors to quote fixed monthly prices for three labor contract line items (project management, sustainment, development), and also provided plug numbers for travel costs.  Id. at 3‑4. The agency awarded the task order to Credence on September 18, for $24,993,820, “for the Base and All Option Periods.”  Agency’s Resp. to GAO Req., Oct. 19, 2020, at 6; id., encl. 7, Task Order, at 11.  The agency provided a debriefing to USIT on September 21, and answered the protester’s written questions on September 30.  This protest followed.  DISCUSSION USIT argues that DLA’s award to Credence was improper based on three primary arguments:  (1) the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations under the technical evaluation factors, (2) Credence misrepresented the availability of its proposed personnel, and (3) the award to Credence was tainted by impaired objectivity and biased ground rules OCIs.  Protest at 16-39.  On October 13, our Office requested that the parties brief whether this protest challenging the issuance of a task order under an IDIQ contract was within our jurisdiction to consider.  Req. for Briefing, Oct.