XL Associates, Inc. (88310321Q00075)

B-420078,B-420078.2 Nov 19, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights XL Associates, Inc. (XLA), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Public Consulting Group (PCG), of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 88310321Q00075, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), for independent verification and validation (IV&V) and configuration management services. XLA, which is the incumbent contractor for the requirement, argues that the agency's evaluation of quotations and source selection decision were unreasonable. 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:  XL Associates, Inc. File:  B-420078; B-420078.2 Date:  November 19, 2021 Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Shomari B. Wade, Esq., Brett C. Castellat, Esq., and Christopher M. O’Brien, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Mark D. Davis, Esq., Charles T. Kimmett, Esq., and Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP, for Public Consulting Group, the intervenor. Jennifer Klein, Esq., National Archives and Records Administration, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and stated evaluation criteria. DECISION XL Associates, Inc. (XLA), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Public Consulting Group (PCG), of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 88310321Q00075, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), for independent verification and validation (IV&V) and configuration management services.  XLA, which is the incumbent contractor for the requirement, argues that the agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, NARA issued the solicitation on May 4, 2021, to vendors holding contracts under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) multiple award schedules program, for FSS 70, Information Technology Professional Services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 85.[1]  The RFQ seeks software testing and configuration management, such as:  manual software testing, software test automation, performance testing, database testing, and configuration management support.  Id. at 52. The solicitation anticipated issuance of a time-and-materials task order for a base year with four 12-month options.  Id. at 95-96.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors:  demonstrated prior experience of the prime contractor, capability of proposed key personnel, virtual oral presentation, and price.  Id. at 131-132.  The demonstrated prior experience factor and key personnel factor were of equal importance and, when combined, were more important than the oral presentation factor.  Id. at 131.  All three non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. The evaluation was to be conducted in two phases using an “advisory down-select” process.  Id. at 56.  In the first phase, vendors were to be evaluated under the first two technical factors--demonstrated prior experience and key personnel; following the phase one evaluation, the agency would issue an “advisory notification.”  Id. at 58-59.  The most highly rated vendors would be advised to proceed to the second phase during which vendors would provide their virtual oral presentations and pricing information, and vendors not among the most highly rated would be advised that they were unlikely to be viable competitors.  Id. at 127.  The intent of the notification was to minimize quotation development costs for vendors with little to no chance of receiving an award.  Id.  With regard to the key personnel factor, the solicitation identified six key positions: program manager, senior tester (manual), senior tester (automation), senior tester (performance), mid-level tester, and configuration management specialist (junior).  Id. at 24-26.  The RFQ instructed vendors to submit resumes for the candidates proposed for these positions.  Id. at 43. NARA received quotations from sixteen vendors by the solicitation closing date.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3.  After conducting the phase I evaluation, the agency notified four vendors, including XLA and PCG, that they were among the most highly rated vendors and that they could participate in phase II of the procurement.[2]  Id. at 3; AR, Tab 10, XLA Notice; Tab 11, PCG Notice.