Guidehouse, Inc. (70US0921Q70090020)

B-419848.3,B-419848.4,B-419848.5 Jun 06, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse LLP, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 70US0921Q70090020, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Secret Service, for the provision of financial support services. Guidehouse argues that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain 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: Guidehouse LLP File: B-419848.3; B-419848.4; B-419848.5 Date: June 6, 2022 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tara L. Ward, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Rhina M. Cardenal, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Deloitte Consulting LLP, the intervenor. Nicole S. Hutchinson, Esq., Paulina Valanty, Esq., and Jessica Chen, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging awardee’s alleged impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is sustained where the agency’s OCI analysis was unreasonable, and mistakenly focused upon whether the two work efforts were similar in size and scope rather than whether the awardee would be in a position to review its own work. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical quotation is denied where the assigned weaknesses were reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criterion, and adequately documented. 3. Protest challenging that the agency failed to evaluate whether awardee’s prices were unbalanced is denied where the protester fails to make a showing that one or more of the awardee’s line item prices were significantly overstated and where the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s price was reasonable. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff source selection decision is sustained where the agency failed to adequately document or explain why the awardee’s technical advantages justified paying the price premium associated with that quotation. DECISION Guidehouse LLP, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 70US0921Q70090020, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Secret Service, for the provision of financial support services. Guidehouse argues that the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President of the United States, their families, visiting heads of state/government, and associated residences: the agency also investigates violations of law relating to the counterfeiting of United States securities and obligations. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ amend. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 111.[1] Within the Secret Service, the responsibilities of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) include conducting budget and financial management operations for the agency. Id. at 110. In support thereof, the Secret Service created the “CFO support services” PWS here to obtain budget formulation and execution, special lodging program, and financial management support services. Id. at 111. The RFQ was issued on January 21, 2021, to holders of the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.[2] RFQ at 97; AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 31. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a base year with four 1-year options. COS at 30. The solicitation established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability (technical); (2) past performance/corporate experience/professional qualifications (past performance); and (3) price. RFQ at 159. The technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than price. Id. Four vendors, including Deloitte and Guidehouse, submitted quotations by the February 22 closing date for receipt of quotations. COS at 31. An agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated vendors’ non-price quotations using various adjectival rating schemes set forth in the solicitation.