Done By Native, LLC (19J01021Q0032)

B-419844 Aug 19, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Done by Native, LLC (DBN), a small business located in Clovis, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Al-Baher Arabic Language Center, located in Amman, Jordan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19J01021Q0032, issued by the Department of State for Arabic language training for the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. The protester argues that its quotation was improperly rejected for noncompliance with the solicitation's pricing terms. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Done By Native, LLC File:  B-419844  Date:  August 19, 2021 Louay Azar for the protester Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.  Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging rejection of protester’s quotation is denied in part where the rejection was based on the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the solicitation’s pricing terms and dismissed in part because any ambiguity with respect to those terms was patent not latent, and as a result, any challenge to those terms at this juncture is untimely. DECISION Done by Native, LLC (DBN), a small business located in Clovis, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Al-Baher Arabic Language Center, located in Amman, Jordan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19J01021Q0032, issued by the Department of State for Arabic language training for the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan.  The protester argues that its quotation was improperly rejected for noncompliance with the solicitation’s pricing terms.  We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On March 9, 2021, the agency issued the solicitation, which anticipates the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for Arabic language training for staff and qualifying family members at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan.  The RFQ stated that “[c]lasses [were] to be given at a firm fixed price per session,” and included the following table to be completed by the vendor: Description Quantity Unit price (JOD)[1] Total (JOD) Arabic Language session 6000       Grand Total     Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 3.  A similar table was included on the first page of the solicitation, which listed the following single item to be priced: “Arabic Language Training to the Employees of the U.S. Embassy in Amman as per attached scope of work.”  Id. at 1.  Page 1 of the RFQ identified the quantity as “6000,” and requested that vendors provide a unit price and an amount for that item.  Id. The solicitation stated that the minimum number of hours the agency would order was 500, and the maximum number of hours was 6,000.  Id. at 9.  Award would be made to “the lowest priced, acceptable, responsible offeror.”  Id. at 29.  The lowest price would be determined by “multiplying the offered prices times the estimated quantities . . . and arriving at a grand total, including all options.”  Id.[2] On March 23, DBN timely submitted a quotation in response to the RFQ.  The quotation included tiered unit pricing; i.e., the first 3,000 hours were priced at an hourly rate of JOD 20, the next 1,500 hours at JOD 19, and the last 1,500 hours at JOD 14, for a total price of JOD 109,500.  AR, Tab 3, DBN Quotation at 3. On April 29, the agency awarded the contract to Al-Baher at a unit price of JOD 19 (for a total contract price of JOD 114,000).  While DBN’s total quoted price (JOD 109,500) was lower than Al-Baher’s, the agency rejected DBN’s quotation due to its tiered pricing structure.  The State Department determined that the tiered pricing did not comply with the terms of the solicitation, specifically section 1.1.2., which required “[c]lasses to be given at a firm fixed price per session.”  AR, Tab 7, Debriefing at 2. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the solicitation permitted DBN to quote tiered pricing and that the agency therefore erred in rejecting DBN’s quotation on that basis.  The protester also contends that the agency could have had a “clarifying discussion” with DBN to remedy the “differing interpretations between the parties.”  Comments at 4.  The protester further argues that, even if DBN’s pricing was not the “lowest price under every contract scenario,” the agency could nonetheless have accepted such pricing, or negotiated further with DBN, because the solicitation contemplated award on a best-value basis.  Comments at 6. While we do not address every argument raised by the protester, we have reviewed each argument and find no basis to sustain the protest. Timeliness As an initial matter, the agency contends that DBN’s protest is untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the agency first notified DBN, via an April 29 letter, of th...