Fors Marsh Group, LLC (91990021R0020)

B-420153 Dec 01, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fors Marsh, Group, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests its non-selection for a multiple-award, blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 91990021R0020, which was issued by the Department of Education (DOE), Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, for systematic reviews of research evidence and the development of a series of What Works Clearinghouse™ (WWC) publications. Fors Marsh primarily challenges the evaluation of its quotation, and the agency's subsequent decision to exclude the quotation from the competitive range. 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:  Fors Marsh Group, LLC File:  B-420153 Date:  December 1, 2021 Kelley P. Doran, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Lidiya Kurin, Esq., and Miles McCann, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for the protester. Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for Mathematica Policy Research; and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and James G. Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Abt Associates, Inc., the intervenors. Paula S. Hughes, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the non-selection of the protester’s quotation for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s applicable evaluation criteria. DECISION Fors Marsh, Group, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests its non-selection for a multiple-award, blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 91990021R0020, which was issued by the Department of Education (DOE), Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, for systematic reviews of research evidence and the development of a series of What Works Clearinghouse™ (WWC) publications.[1]  Fors Marsh primarily challenges the evaluation of its quotation, and the agency’s subsequent decision to exclude the quotation from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was issued on May 21, 2021, sought quotations for the establishment of multiple-award BPAs to support the development of WWC practice guides, intervention reports, and related products that will be ordered under preschool-to-postsecondary evidence synthesis task orders (WWC-PESTO).  DOE anticipates issuing at least eight WWC-PESTO orders during the BPAs’ 60-month ordering period.  Agency Report (AR), Tab C, RFQ, attach. No. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1.  DOE anticipates issuing hybrid orders, with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable tasks.  Id., attach. No. 4, Questions & Answers, at 7.  In addition to establishing the BPAs, DOE also intended to award the first WWC-PESTO order. DOE was to evaluate offerors under the following evaluation criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance:  (a) technical qualifications of proposed staff; (b) soundness of technical approach; (c) management of tasks; (d) substantive small business participation; (e) related corporate experience; (f) past performance; and (g) price.  Id., attach. No. 3, Technical Evaluation Criteria, at 1-3.  As discussed herein, only the corporate experience factor is relevant to our resolution of the protest. Under the corporate experience factor, DOE was to evaluate the extent to which: ·  There is evidence of prior successful corporate experience and capacity with projects of a similar nature, which includes delivering timely, quality products on or under budget. ·  There is evidence of prior successful corporate experience in leading or participating in reviews, studies, or projects of similar scale, scope, and challenges. ·  There is documentation of preparation of high-quality, practitioner-friendly resources of materials that communicate research findings to non-researcher audiences. ·  There is a track record of maintaining well-qualified staff. ·  There is a record of strong past performance in terms of quality, creativity, problem resolution, cost control, timeliness, business relations and customer service. Id. at 2. When evaluating quotations, DOE was to assign (i) strengths for quotation attributes that can be beneficial to the program or greatly increase the probability of successful contract performance, and (ii) weaknesses for quotation attributes that are flaws in the quotation that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.  Id.