Eagle Technologies, Inc. (140D0421Q0158)

B-420135.2,B-420135.3,B-420135.4 Jun 22, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Eagle Technologies, Inc., a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Dynanet Corporation, located in Elkridge, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140D0421Q0158. The RFQ was issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for development and platform support services for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG). Eagle argues that the agency failed to adequately consider whether Dynanet has an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). The protester also alleges that DOI misevaluated quotations, conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis, and evaluated vendors disparately. 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: Eagle Technologies, Inc. File: B-420135.2; B-420135.3; B-420135.4 Date: June 22, 2022 Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Aime JH Joo, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Richard B. O’Keeffe Jr., Esq., and Cara L. Lasley, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Dynanet Corporation, the intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest asserting that awardee possessed an organizational conflict of interest is dismissed where protester’s allegations are based on speculation and do not meet the requirements of our Bid Protest Regulations. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation’s evaluation criteria is dismissed as untimely where the protester was advised of the agency’s interpretation but elected to challenge that interpretation more than 10 days later. DECISION Eagle Technologies, Inc., a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Dynanet Corporation, located in Elkridge, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140D0421Q0158. The RFQ was issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for development and platform support services for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG). Eagle argues that the agency failed to adequately consider whether Dynanet has an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). The protester also alleges that DOI misevaluated quotations, conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis, and evaluated vendors disparately. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on April 12, 2021, as a small business set-aside, to eleven holders of the General Services Administration’s Information Technology-Professional Services multiple award schedule contract, special item number 54151S, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2-3. DOI solicited the requirement on behalf of HHS OIG, anticipating the establishment of three blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) and the issuance of an order under one of the resulting BPAs. RFQ at 1. Under the BPA, the agency could issue orders on a fixed-price, labor-hour, or time-and-materials basis, or a combination thereof, for a base year and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 2. The RFQ provided for award of the BPAs on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: demonstrated prior experience; technical capability and understanding; management approach; and price. Id. at 9. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. For award of the first BPA order, the agency was also to conduct a best-value tradeoff analysis, considering technical capability and understanding; management approach; and price. COS at 6. The RFQ stated that the agency would employ a two-phased evaluation approach. Id. at 2-8. In phase 1, the agency would evaluate vendors’ demonstrated prior experience. Id. at 4-5. Following the agency’s evaluation of the phase 1 submissions, the agency would advise vendors as to whether they were likely to be viable competitors and should proceed to phase 2. Id. In phase 2, the agency was to evaluate the technical capability and understanding, management approach, and price factors. Id. at 6-7. The solicitation instructed that the agency would evaluate each vendor’s demonstrated prior experience to assess “whether it will lead to successful performance of the work required in the BPA PWS [performance work statement].” Id. at 9.