ERP Services, Inc. (HQ0034-20-R-0264)

B-419315 Feb 24, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ERP Services, Inc., of Sterling, Virginia, challenges the award of a contract to Akamai Technologies, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) HQ0034-20-R-0264 issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for domain name system (DNS) resolver services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of quotations by applying unstated evaluation criteria. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  ERP Services, Inc. File:  B-419315 Date:  February 24, 2021 David E. Fletcher, Esq., Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., and Paul Korol, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James M. Larkin, Esq., The Larkin Law Group LLP, for Akamai Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Stephan Piel, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably evaluated quotations is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   ERP Services, Inc., of Sterling, Virginia, challenges the award of a contract to Akamai Technologies, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) HQ0034-20-R-0264 issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for domain name system (DNS) resolver services.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of quotations by applying unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 22, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ as a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services using the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1-2.  The RFQ sought to procure DNS resolver[1] services, as well as a system to store and analyze various information logged by the DNS resolver, which the RFQ referred to as a “data lake.”  Id.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed price contract with a 1-year base period and two 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR) at 73-74.[2] The solicitation provided for a three-phased competition, with each phase focusing on a different evaluation factor.  AR at 26-27.  In the first phase, vendors would submit written technical solutions that the agency would evaluate to assess whether they addressed the RFQ’s minimum requirements.  Id.  Vendors with solutions that met the RFQ’s minimum requirements would be invited to the second phase, during which the vendors would provide a live technical usability demonstration.  Id.  Finally, the agency would determine which vendors were “viable competitors” based on the first two phases, and invite those vendors to the third phase, in which they would submit pricing.  Id. at 27. Relevant to this protest, the RFQ provided that, during the usability demonstration, vendors would need to demonstrate their ability to meet each of seven tasks with their proposed solution by “walking government evaluators through how each requirement would be completed using an in-production service, a prototype, or wireframes.”  AR at 26.  Additionally, the RFQ provided that the demonstration and solution would be evaluated “on how well [a] user can accomplish a given task in a reasonable amount of time and with minimal cognitive strain,” and “from a user-centered design/human factors perspective.”  Id. at 26-27. The agency received seven written technical solution quotations in response to the RFQ, including quotations from the protester and intervenor.  COS/MOL at 3.  On the basis of its written technical solution, the protester was invited to the second phase to conduct a usability demonstration.  Id.  The demonstration was conducted by videoconference on September 17, 2020, and was recorded.  Id.  Following the presentation, the agency concluded that the protester did not propose a viable solution, primarily based on the agency’s review of ERP’s solution under various usability factors.  Id.