Tuba Group (47QFHA20Q0002-ID06190009)

B-419733 Jun 30, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tuba Group, a small business of Great Falls, Virginia, protests the General Services Administration’s (GSA) award of a contract to Quality Innovation, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFHA20Q0002-ID06190009 for critical support services to GSA’s National Customer Service Center (NCSC). The protester challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, arguing that the agency used unstated evaluation criteria that improperly elevated the price factor to a degree of importance greater than set forth in the solicitation. 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:  Tuba Group File:  B-419733 Date:  June 30, 2021 William M. Weisberg, Esq., Law Offices of William Weisberg, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Nathaniel Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the intervenor. Jeffry O. Young, Esq., Fallyme E. Guerrero, Esq., James T. Van Biber, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Alberto Lopez, and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a tradeoff that was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION Tuba Group, a small business of Great Falls, Virginia, protests the General Services Administration’s (GSA) award of a contract to Quality Innovation, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFHA20Q0002-ID06190009 for critical support services to GSA’s National Customer Service Center (NCSC).  The protester challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, arguing that the agency used unstated evaluation criteria that improperly elevated the price factor to a degree of importance greater than set forth in the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2020, GSA issued the RFQ, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking program support services for NCSC operations in Kansas City, Missouri.  RFQ at 2.  The RFQ, which was set aside for small businesses, provided for award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period, and four 1-year options.  Id. at 3-5.  The solicitation required evaluation on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five evaluation factors:  staffing plan; management plan, with general management approach to performance work statement (PWS), recruiting and retention approach, and experience subfactors; past performance; socio-economic status; and price.  RFQ at 54-55.  The staffing plan factor was more important than the management plan factor, the management plan factor was more important than the past performance factor, and the past performance factor was more important than the socio-economic status factor; however, when combined, the non-price factors were approximately equal to price.[1]  Id. at 55.  As relevant to the protest, the agency would evaluate the staffing plan to assess the likelihood of performance success taking into consideration criteria like the labor mix, cost efficiency, skills and experience of the staff, and staff sufficiency.  Id.  The RFQ also required that the on-site lead have either three years of experience in the primary functional area, or an Associate’s Degree and one year of experience.  Agency Report (AR), Tab E, PWS at 4.  The agency received quotations from several vendors, including Tuba and Quality Innovation.  AR, Tab F at 1.  After evaluating quotations, as discussed below, GSA conducted a best-value tradeoff analysis between three vendors, including the protestor and awardee.  AR, Tab D, Award Decision Document (ADD).  The source selection decision set forth the final evaluation results in detail, including the strengths and weaknesses for each offeror.  Id.  The evaluation of the awardee’s and protester’s proposals is summarized below:    Quality Innovation Tuba Staffing Plan Good Outstanding Management Plan Good Good Past Performance Significant Confidence Significant Confidence Socio-Economic Status Excellent Good Price $11,659,320 $12,123,456   AR, Tab D, ADD Addendum at 2.  In the agency’s tradeoff decision, the source selection authority (SSA) recognized that there were an equal number of strengths between the offerors and focused on the staffing plan and socio-economic status factors “to determine if an appreciable difference exists between the offerors to justify the price premium.”  Id.