RiverTech, LLC (15DDHQ21Q00000034)

B-420246 Dec 21, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RiverTech, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to Eagle Harbor, LLC, of Manassas, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15DDHQ21Q00000034, issued by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for professional, technical, and administrative support services for four DEA program offices. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical quotations and failed to perform and document a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. 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:  RiverTech, LLC File:  B-420246 Date:  December 21, 2021 C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Roger V. Abbott, Esq., and Jarrod R. Carman, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the protester. James Y Boland, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Eagle Harbor, LLC, the intervenor. James E. Hicks, Esq.,Department of Justice, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated technical quotations is denied where the evaluation conformed to the requirements of the solicitation and Federal Acquisition Regulation section 16.505. 2. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis is denied because, when an agency reasonably evaluates competing quotations as essentially equal technically, no tradeoff is required in choosing the lower-priced quotation. DECISION RiverTech, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to Eagle Harbor, LLC, of Manassas, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15DDHQ21Q00000034, issued by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for professional, technical, and administrative support services for four DEA program offices.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical quotations and failed to perform and document a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued to vendors holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) Governmentwide Acquisition Contract.  The competition was open to OASIS 8(a) Sub Pool #1 contract holders.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price and time and materials task order with a term of 1 year and four 1-year options.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 20‑21.[1] The task order would be issued to the contractor whose quotation represented the best value to the agency, considering technical approach, corporate experience of contractor, past performance, and price.  The RFQ provided that the technical approach factor was the most important, and that the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  RFQ at 185. The competition was to be conducted in two phases.  In the first phase, offerors were to submit factor 1--technical approach--quotations.  Id. at 187.  The agency would invite vendors submitting the most highly rated quotations under phase I to participate in phase II, but any phase I vendor was permitted to continue in the competition.  Id. at 186.  The agency would evaluate the two remaining technical factors and price under phase II.  Id.  Under the technical approach factor--factor 1--the agency would assess its level of confidence that the vendor will successfully perform the task order requirements, including the transition.  The agency would consider the organization and management of the project effort, quality control, client liaison, and several personnel issues, including:  plans for retaining the incumbent staff; recruiting, screening, and clearing applicants; and the supervision of project team members.  Id. at 183. Under the corporate experience of contractor factor--factor 2--the agency would assess the likelihood that the vendor’s relevant experience would minimize the risk of unsuccessful performance, comparing that experience to the nature, scope, complexity, difficulty, and resources and qualifications required to perform this task order.  Id. at 183-184. Under the past performance factor--factor 3--the RFQ required vendors to identify their proven experience providing the same, or similar, services to other federal agencies “no older than three-to-five years past performance.”  Id.