Glacier Technologies, LLC (12314422Q0019)

B-420775.5 Dec 30, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Glacier Technologies, LLC (Glacier), an Alaska Native Corporation of El Paso, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to the contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) of Dynamo Technologies LLC, and Alpha Omega Integration, LLC (Dynamo-Alpha Omega), both 8(a) small businesses of Vienna, Virginia. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued the task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0019, for the provision of mission support services to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Security Center. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations submitted by Glacier and Dynamo-Alpha Omega under both non-price factors, and challenges the agency's best-value decision. 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: Glacier Technologies, LLC File: B-420775.5 Date: December 30, 2022 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., Danielle R. Rich, Esq., and Richard D. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Aime J. Joo, Esq., and Scott E. Whitman, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for Dynamo‑Alpha Omega, the intervenor. Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s post‑corrective action evaluation as unreasonable for not reconciling the results of that evaluation with the results of an earlier evaluation is denied for failure to state a valid basis of protest. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s overall evaluation rating assigned to the awardee’s quotation is denied where the protester is unable to show competitive prejudice. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best‑value decision is denied where the record demonstrates that the decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Glacier Technologies, LLC (Glacier), an Alaska Native Corporation of El Paso, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to the contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) of Dynamo Technologies LLC, and Alpha Omega Integration, LLC (Dynamo‑Alpha Omega), both 8(a)[1] small businesses of Vienna, Virginia. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued the task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0019, for the provision of mission support services to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Security Center. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations submitted by Glacier and Dynamo‑Alpha Omega under both non‑price factors, and challenges the agency’s best‑value decision. We deny the protest. Background The RFQ was issued on March 2, 2022, as a small business set‑aside to four vendors holding the Department of Agriculture Information Technology Support Services blanket purchase agreement restricted to small disadvantaged business concerns (SDBs).[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1‑2. The procurement was conducted under the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) procedures of FAR subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 4, Amended RFQ Sections I & II (RFQ) at 2. The agency sought quotations for mission support services which included “providing the necessary technical and business specialties to augment and enhance the organizational goals, performance and mission capabilities in the areas of executive assistance, acquisition and procurement support, program management analysis, [information technology (IT)] policy editing, operations & business management, and related activities.” AR, Exh. 6, Performance Work Statement amend. 1 (PWS) at 5‑6. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 7, 14. Award was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering three factors: technical, prior experience, and price. Id. at 9‑10. The technical factor was to be evaluated for the level of confidence the quotation provided the agency in the vendor’s understanding of the requirement, the soundness of the vendor’s approach, and whether the vendor would be successful in performing the contract. Id. at 9. Under the technical factor, confidence was to be rated on a scale of low confidence, some confidence, or high confidence. Id. Like the technical factor, the prior experience factor was to be rated on a confidence scale of low confidence, some confidence, or high confidence, but included an additional possible rating of very high confidence. Id. at 10. The non‑price factors, when combined, were considered to be more important than price. Id. at 9. Quotations were due by March 25. Id.