Creoal Consulting, LLC (70RDAD19Q00000101)

B-419460,B-419460.2 Mar 04, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Creoal Consulting, LLC, a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the firm under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RDAD19Q00000101, for enterprise financial systems integrator support services. The protester contends, among other things, that the agency's evaluation of quotations was unreasonable, uneven, and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that DHS's best-value tradeoff was flawed. 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:  Creoal Consulting, LLC File:  B-419460; B-419460.2 Date:  March 4, 2021 Thomas A. Coulter, Esq., Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, for the protester. Llewelyn M. Engel, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, for Savantage Solutions; Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Neil H. O’Donnell, Esq., Emily A. Wieser, Esq., and Eleanor M. Ross, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, for CGI Federal Inc., the intervenors. Charlene T. Storino, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency engaged in disparate treatment in the evaluation of quotations is denied where the different evaluation results were reasonably based on substantive differences between the quotations. DECISION div=""> Creoal Consulting, LLC, a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the firm under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RDAD19Q00000101, for enterprise financial systems integrator support services.  The protester contends, among other things, that the agency’s evaluation of quotations was unreasonable, uneven, and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that DHS’s best-value tradeoff was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 30, 2019, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding General Services Administration federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts under Information Technology Schedule 70.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5b, RFQ amend. 1 at 4[1]; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the establishment of multiple BPAs, with a period of performance of 10 years, where the underlying orders will be placed on fixed-price, time-and-materials, and labor-hour bases.  AR, Tab 5b, RFQ amend. 1 at 4, 23.  The solicitation sought enterprise financial systems integrator (EFSI) support services for DHS’s transition to standard financial, procurement, and asset management business processes.  Id. at 28-29.  Specifically, contractors will be required to perform tasks such as program management, system integration and implementation, data cleansing, preparation and staging, service desk operations, system operations and maintenance, and training services.  See id. at 39-58. The solicitation advised that BPAs would be issued to vendors on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and other factors.[2]  Id. at 71.  The agency utilized a phased evaluation.  During phase one, vendors were evaluated against three factors:  (i) demonstrated prior experience and reference checks; (ii) technical understanding and capabilities; and (iii) management approach.  Id. at 72.  Following the agency’s evaluation in phase one, DHS would then notify vendors who were rated most highly to proceed to phase two of the competition.  Id. at 60-61.  Vendors who participated in this second phase would be evaluated in two areas:  (i) oral presentation; and (ii) price.  Id. at 72.  The solicitation advised that the evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance--with demonstrated prior experience and reference checks being the most important, and price being the least important--and that the technical factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The RFQ provided that DHS would consider the benefits and risks associated with a vendor’s approach to arrive at a confidence assessment of each vendor’s likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the requirements of the solicitation.  Id.