OSI Vision, LLC (W9124J-21-R-HELP)

B-420199 Jan 03, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights OSI Vision, LLC (OSI), a small business located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to Agile-Bot II, LLC (Agile-Bot), also a small business located in Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contacting Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124J-21-R-HELP to obtain various information technology support services. 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:  OSI Vision, LLC File:  B-420199 Date:  January 3, 2022 John R. Tolle, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Abraham Young, Esq., and Carlos S. Pedraza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of quotations is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. DECISION OSI Vision, LLC (OSI), a small business located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to Agile-Bot II, LLC (Agile-Bot), also a small business located in Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contacting Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124J-21-R-HELP to obtain various information technology support services.  We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. On April 29, 2021, the Army issued the RFQ as a competitive set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program, using the ordering procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-5.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 3-1, RFQ at 1.[1]  The RFQ was issued to vendors holding a contract under the General Services Administration’s Multiple Award Schedule 541513, Information Technology Professional Services.  Id.  As amended, the RFQ sought quotations for help desk/service desk support, daily operations management, technical management services, and cybersecurity services in support of the U.S. Army North Command in Fort Sam Houston, Texas.[2]  AR exh. 3-15, RFQ amend. 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2.  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 14-day phase-in period, a base period of 10-months, two 1-year options, and a 6-month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.  RFQ at 1; AR exh. 3-13, RFQ amend. 1, Provisions and Clauses at 17; AR exh. 3-15, RFQ amend. 2, PWS at 3.  The RFQ provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors:  technical approach, past performance, and price.  AR exh. 3-13, RFQ amend. 1, Provisions and Clauses at 16.  The technical approach factor included three equally weighted subfactors:  (1) understanding of requirement; (2) staffing plan/key personnel qualifications and experience; and (3) phase-in plan.  The technical approach factor was approximately equal to the past performance factor and, when combined, they were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The RFQ provided that a vendor’s technical approach would be evaluated for technical merit under each of the three subfactors to determine the degree to which the proposed approach met or exceeded the RFQ’s requirements.  At issue in this protest is the agency’s evaluation of quotations under the staffing plan/key personnel qualifications and experience subfactor.  The RFQ stated that this subfactor would be evaluated qualitatively assessing how well the vendor’s quotation addressed the following elements:  (i) key personnel qualifications; (ii) staffing approach; (iii) staffing plan; and (iv) key personnel positions.  See id. at 11-12. With respect to past performance, vendors were required to provide up to three past performance references for work performed as the prime contractor.  AR exh. 3-13, RFQ amend. 1, Provisions and Clauses at 12.  The RFQ also provided that If the offeror is proposing the use of a major subcontractor (defined as performing 30% or more of the total labor value of the contemplated effort), the offeror shall provide at least one past performance reference for all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform a significant portion of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. Id.