Async-Nu Microsystems, Inc. (19AQMM20Q0100)

B-419614.5,B-419614.6 Sep 30, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Async-Nu Microsystems, Inc. (ANM), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Mobomo, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM20Q0100, issued by the Department of State for media communications and messaging support services.1 ANM argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: Async-Nu Microsystems, Inc. File: B-419614.5; B-419614.6 Date: September 30, 2022 Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Amba M. Datta, Esq., and Caitlin T. Conroy, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for the protester. Jeremy S. Scholtes, Esq., and Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Mobomo, LLC, an intervenor. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Async-Nu Microsystems, Inc. (ANM), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Mobomo, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM20Q0100, issued by the Department of State for media communications and messaging support services.[1] ANM argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ contemplates the establishment of a BPA on a best-value tradeoff basis for a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and an additional three 1-year call order periods of performance. The resulting BPA will be to provide communications operations support services for the agency’s Bureau of Educational Cultural Affairs (ECA). Competition for the requirement was confined to firms holding underlying GSA FSS contracts. Firms were required to provide fully burdened, fixed-price labor rates for a number of specified labor categories. The RFQ advised that the agency’s selection decision would consider price and two equally weighted non-price factors, technical experience[2] and management approach, which together were deemed significantly more important than price.[3] RFQ at 23. The RFQ provided that prices would be evaluated for reasonableness. RFQ at 24. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of quotations. The agency established a BPA with OnPoint Consulting, Inc. on the basis of initial quotations, and two firms filed protests with our Office challenging the agency’s selection decision. In response to those protests, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by engaging in discussions, soliciting and evaluating revised quotations, and making a new source selection decision. Based on the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed those protests as academic. Barbaricum, LLC, B-419614, Mar. 15, 2021 (unpublished decision); MetroStar Systems, Inc., B‑419614.2, Mar. 15, 2021 (unpublished decision). Thereafter, the agency performed its corrective action as described and selected Mobomo for establishment of the BPA. After learning of that source selection, two more protests were filed with our Office. In response to those protests, the agency again advised that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating quotations and making a new source selection. One of the protesters (OnPoint Consulting, Inc.) withdrew its protest after learning of the agency’s proposed corrective action. (Confirmation of Withdrawal Notice, B-419614.3, Apr. 15, 2022). ANM--the other protester--objected to dismissal of its protest based on the agency’s proposed corrective action. ANM maintained the contracting officer had made certain representations in a filing pre-dating the agency’s corrective action notice that, according to ANM, showed the agency did not intend to evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the RFQ. We dismissed ANM’s protest challenging the selection of Mobomo as academic, and concluded that its objection to the agency’s proposed corrective action merely anticipated improper agency action, and was therefore premature. Async-Nu Microsystems, Inc., B-419614.4, Apr.