AttainX, Inc. (12314420Q0042)

B-419306,B-419306.2 Jan 12, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AttainX, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to B&B Solutions, a small business of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314420Q0042 (RFQ 0042), which was issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for investigative support services. AttainX complains that its quotation was unreasonably eliminated from the competition because it proposed the same key personnel for RFQ 0042, as well as a separate solicitation for which it received an 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:  AttainX, Inc. File:  B-419306; B-419306.2 Date:  January 12, 2021 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Ian Patterson, Esq., and John Mattox, Esq., Schoonover + Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Antonio Robinson, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably eliminated quotation from consideration for award because protester proposed the same key personnel in its quotation submitted in response to a related solicitation, for which it received an award, is denied where solicitation for which protester’s quotation was eliminated specifically prohibited vendors from offering the same key personnel under both solicitations.  DECISION   AttainX, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to B&B Solutions, a small business of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314420Q0042 (RFQ 0042), which was issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for investigative support services.  AttainX complains that its quotation was unreasonably eliminated from the competition because it proposed the same key personnel for RFQ 0042, as well as a separate solicitation for which it received an award.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued RFQ 0042 on June 19, 2020, as a set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) business development program for legal investigative services for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR).  Resp. to Req. for Documents, Doc. 2, RFQ 0042 at 1, 4.  Specifically, the solicitation sought vendors to review investigative plans, obtain information (including statistics and testimony), update the complaint system, prepare the investigative file, and distribute the review of investigations.  Id. at 4.  On June 18, the agency issued a related solicitation, RFQ No. 12314420Q0049 (RFQ 0049), for support services to review the investigative file, draft the final agency decisions, and prepare complaint status memoranda.  Id., Doc. 6, RFQ 0049 at 1, 4.  RFQ 0042 contemplated a best-value tradeoff basis for award, based on an evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:  technical approach; key personnel; and past performance.  RFQ 0042 at 35.  Relevant to this protest, the solicitation identified two key personnel--the program manager, and the on-site lead equal opportunity specialist--that were “considered essential to the work being performed under this contract.”  Id. at 7.  RFQ 0049 identified the same key personnel categories as required and essential for performance.  RFQ 0049 at 7.  With respect to the key personnel factor, RFQ 0042 stated that the agency would evaluate personnel on the minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation.  RFQ 0042 at 55.  On July 28, the agency issued amendment No. 1 to RFQ 0042, which responded to vendors’ questions.  Agency Response to GAO Question, Dec. 4, attach. 1, System for Award Management Posting at 4.  The following two questions and responses with respect to RFQ 0042 are relevant to this protest: Question:  Is there a minimum time requirement for on-site-work for the Program Manager, Lead Person . . . ?  What percentage of work can be telework? Response:  On site is required 4 out of 5 days a week. *  *  *  *  *  Question:  What is the relationship between [RFQ 0042], OASCR Support Services and [RFQ 0049], Final Agency Determination?  Are there current contract vehicles in place for both efforts?  If so, are there incumbents in place for both contracts?  Were the contracts awarded to the same incumbent?  Is it permissible for a bidder to submit proposals for both?  Is it permissible to reference the same past performances for each?  Is it permissible to specify some of the same personnel for both?  Response:  1. The relationship between the two RFQ[s] is that the first RFQ deals with . .