Eccalon LLC (HQ0034-21-Q-0019)

B-420297.3 Jun 13, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Eccalon, LLC, a small business of Hanover, Maryland, challenges the corrective action taken by the agency after our Office sustained Eccalon's protest of the issuance of a task order to Contracting Resources Group, Inc. (CRG), a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ0034-21-Q-0019. The RFQ, issued by Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, seeks services to support the DOD's Office of Small Business Programs with increasing small business participation in DOD acquisitions. The protester argues an amendment issued by the agency in response to the sustained protest was overly broad, not appropriate to remedy the procurement improprieties, and unsupported by any documented change in the agency's requirements. 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: Eccalon LLC File: B-420297.3 Date: June 13, 2022 David S. Panzer, Esq., and Michael E. Hatch, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Contracting Resources Group, Inc., the intervenor. Stephan Piel, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of the solicitation following an amendment issued in response to a sustained protest is denied where the amendment remedied the previously identified improprieties and otherwise made reasonable changes to the solicitation. DECISION Eccalon, LLC, a small business of Hanover, Maryland, challenges the corrective action taken by the agency after our Office sustained Eccalon’s protest of the issuance of a task order to Contracting Resources Group, Inc. (CRG), a small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ0034-21-Q-0019. The RFQ, issued by Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, seeks services to support the DOD’s Office of Small Business Programs with increasing small business participation in DOD acquisitions. The protester argues an amendment issued by the agency in response to the sustained protest was overly broad, not appropriate to remedy the procurement improprieties, and unsupported by any documented change in the agency’s requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND As noted above, Eccalon’s current protest challenges an amendment issued by the agency in response to our Office’s decision sustaining Eccalon’s earlier protest of this procurement. Protest at 4‑5; see Eccalon, LLC, B‑420297, B‑420297.2, Jan. 24, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 70. We begin by providing some background regarding the original RFQ and protest. Original RFQ and Protest On April 30, 2021, the agency issued the RFQ as a set-aside for small business vendors under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Exh.1, RFQ at 4; AR, Exh. 11, Unsuccessful Quoter Notification at 331.[1] The due date for quotations, as amended, was August 2, 2021. AR, Exh. 3, RFQ amend. 0002 at 82.[2] The original RFQ provided for the evaluation of quotations under the following four evaluation factors: prior experience; technical approach; management and staffing approach; and price. RFQ at 44‑45. For prior experience, vendors were to identify three efforts within the last five years that were of the same or similar scope, magnitude, and complexity as the requirements of the RFQ. Id. at 44. The RFQ provided that quotations would be evaluated “based on how well the quoter has performed on contracts that have been determined to be both recent and relevant to the [Performance Work Statement (PWS)],” and that there were “three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.” Id. at 127. For technical approach, vendors were to provide their approach to the following task areas: cybersecurity, integrated performance management, mentor-protégé pilot program, and program management. Id. at 125. Under this factor, the agency would evaluate the vendor’s understanding of the requirements, the extent to which the quotation details practical methods to accomplish the required tasks, and whether the quotation identified reliable methods for ensuring quality deliverables. Id. at 127. For management and staffing approach, vendors were to demonstrate their approach for recruiting personnel and mitigating staff turnover. Id. at 125.