Deloitte & Touche LLP (15F06721Q0000167)

B-420038 Oct 28, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Deloitte & Touche LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and task order to Ernst & Young LLP under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15F06721Q0000167, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for audit support services. Deloitte challenges the agency's evaluation of technical quotations, price evaluation methodology, and best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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:  Deloitte & Touche LLP File:  B‑420038 Date:  October 28, 2021 David Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Rhina M. Cardenal, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Amanda Sherwood, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Ernst & Young LLP, the intervenor. Catherine Chen, Esq., Michael Giordano, Esq., and Marcela Liddick, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest of agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical quotation is denied where the agency reasonably applied the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in determining that aspects of the protester’s quotation met, but did not exceed, the solicitation’s requirements. 2.  Protest of agency’s evaluation of awardee’s technical quotation is dismissed where the protest fails to identify any violation by the agency of the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest of agency’s price evaluation methodology is denied because the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice where the agency reasonably found the awardee superior on non‑price evaluation factors and the protester cannot demonstrate that the agency should have evaluated its price as lower than the awardee’s price. DECISION Deloitte & Touche LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and task order to Ernst & Young LLP under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15F06721Q0000167, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for audit support services.  Deloitte challenges the agency’s evaluation of technical quotations, price evaluation methodology, and best‑value tradeoff. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On April 12, 2021, the FBI issued the RFQ using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, under General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule 541661 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services).[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1‑2.[2]  The RFQ sought quotations for audit support services in support of the FBI’s Office of Internal Auditing.  Id. at 5.  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a single BPA for a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods.[3]  Id. at 5, 10. The RFQ instructed vendors to submit their quotations in six volumes, including a past performance volume, a technical volume, and a price volume.  Id. at 26.  The RFQ provided that award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors:  past performance, technical quote, and price.[4]  Id. at 30.  The two non‑price evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, and when combined were significantly more important than price.  Id.   With respect to past performance, the RFQ required vendors to provide three past performance examples “that convey the Quoter’s experience and qualifications for performance of requirements of the same scope and magnitude of this RFQ.”  RFQ at 27.  The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate “the extent to which the three (3) Past Performance examples demonstrate relevant experience for contracts of similar scope and magnitude as the requirements in this RFQ,” and would assign a confidence rating based on “the combination of the relevancy and quality of the examples provided, which are equal in weight.”  Id.