Martek Global Services, Inc. (36C10B22Q0246)

B-420865 Sep 28, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computerized Facility Integration LLC, a Newmark Company (Computerized), a small business of New York, New York, protests the issuance of a task order to Blue Water Thinking, LLC, a small business of Edgewater, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B22Q0246, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for a commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS), software as a service (SaaS) brand name TRIRIGA or equal solution to replace the agency's current project management information systems (PMIS). The protestor challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Computerized Facility Integration LLC, a Newmark Company File: B-420865 Date: September 28, 2022 Diane E. Whinham, for the protester. John W. Tangalos, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 a deficiency identified in the protester’s quotation under the technical factor is denied were the deficiency was reasonably assessed based on the protester’s proposed technical approach and the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protester is not an interested party to maintain remaining protest grounds where its quotation was rendered ineligible for award based on a reasonably assessed deficiency, and where the record demonstrates that there was an award eligible vendor that would be next in line for award even if the protester’s remaining grounds were sustained. DECISION Computerized Facility Integration LLC, a Newmark Company (Computerized), a small business of New York, New York, protests the issuance of a task order to Blue Water Thinking, LLC, a small business of Edgewater, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B22Q0246, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for a commercially available off‑the‑shelf (COTS), software as a service (SaaS) brand name TRIRIGA[1] or equal solution to replace the agency’s current project management information systems (PMIS). The protestor challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation.[2] We deny the protest. Background The mission of the VA’s Office of Construction and Facilities Management (CFM) is to provide design, major construction, and lease project management; design and construction standards; and historic preservation services and expertise to the VA in an effort to deliver high‑quality, cost‑effective facilities to support military veterans. RFQ at 19. Major projects at CFM involve complex project management processes. Id. CFM’s currently configured PMIS aid the agency’s project management efforts by allowing the agency to improve accountability and collaboration while capturing a digital record of all project management decisions and supporting information. Id. On May 10, 2022, the VA issued the RFQ as a small business set‑aside under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), to small business vendors holding multiple award schedule No. 54151S, information technology professional services. RFQ at 1, 99. The RFQ explained that CFM required a COTS, SaaS brand name TRIRIGA or equal solution to replace its current PMIS. Id. at 19. The RFQ required any proposed solution to be Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) approved at a moderate impact level.[3] Id. The RFQ further required the prospective contractor to provide subscriptions to new PMIS software along with comprehensive support services to ensure the successful deployment of the new PMIS. Id. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 1‑year base period and a single 1‑year option period to the vendor submitting the lowest‑priced technically acceptable quotation, considering price and a single non‑price factor, technical. Id. at 22, 98. Quotations would be evaluated under the technical factor by assessing five aspects of the vendor’s technical approach. Id. at 100‑101. The first four aspects would evaluate how the vendor approached certain requirements detailed in the performance work statement (PWS), while the final aspect would evaluate the vendor’s “description of how data migration [would] be executed to a new system at the end of the contract period.” Id. at 101. Quotations were due by May 27. Id. at 1. The agency received multiple quotations by the submission due date, including quotations from Computerized and Blue Water Thinking.[4] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) ¶¶ 4, 8.