Innovative Management Concepts, Inc. (89503019QWA000032)

B-419834.2,B-419834.3 Sep 20, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Innovative Management Concepts, Inc. (IMC), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sterling, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Epsilon, Inc., an SDVOSB of Weaverville, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8950319QWA00032, issued by the Department of Energy's Western Area Power Authority (WAPA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency's evaluation of quotations and its best-value tradeoff 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:  Innovative Management Concepts, Inc. File:  B-419834.2; B-419834.3 Date:  September 20, 2021 Erin L. Felix, Esq., Holly A. Roth, Esq., and Elise S. Seale, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. James W. Norment, Esq., Ward and Smith, P.A., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Epsilon, Inc., the intervenor. Nicholas M. Bidwell, Esq., Eric F. Mulch, Esq, Kevin R. Hilferty, Esq., Thomas Cordova, Esq., and Elizabeth Cypers, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under the technical and past performance factors is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging disparate treatment is denied where the record reflects that the differences in evaluations resulted from differences in vendors’ quotations. DECISION Innovative Management Concepts, Inc. (IMC), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sterling, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Epsilon, Inc., an SDVOSB of Weaverville, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8950319QWA00032, issued by the Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Authority (WAPA) for information technology (IT) services.  The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation of quotations and its best‑value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2020, under the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to SDVOSB holders of the General Services Administration’s Veterans Technology Services governmentwide acquisition indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1, RFQ at 1.[1]  The agency sought quotations for the provision of a variety of IT services, including software maintenance and development, operations support, cyber operations, cyber information assurance, network support and management, database support and administration, supervisory control and data acquisition support, project management, and solution architects.  Id. at 204-205. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single fixed-price task order with some cost- reimbursable items (e.g., travel), for a 1-year base period, and nine 1-year option periods.  RFQ at 2.  The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, taking into consideration price reasonableness and two non-price evaluation factors--technical approach and past performance.  Id. at 269.  Technical approach was the most important of the two non-price factors; the agency anticipated using adjectival ratings of excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory.  Id.; AR, Tab B.4, Evaluation Team Report (Eval. Rpt.) at 5.  Past performance was less important than technical approach, and the agency anticipated using adjectival ratings of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral.  RFQ at 269; AR, Tab B.4, Eval. Rpt. at 6.  The solicitation established that the two non-price evaluation factors combined were more important than price, but also explained that the agency would “not make an award at a price premium it consider[ed] disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one Contractor over another.”  RFQ at 269. The agency received six timely quotations, including those submitted by IMC and Epsilon.[2]  AR, Tab B.5, Selection Decision Report (Select.