Vector Resources, Inc. (89233122QNA000226)

B-420896,B-420896.2 Oct 18, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vector Resources, Inc., of Englewood, Florida, challenges the issuance of a task order to Sigma Science, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89233122QNA000226, which was issued for technical and administrative support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors' technical quotations and unreasonably selected Sigma's quotation for award. 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: Vector Resources, Inc. File: B-420896; B-420896.2 Date: October 18, 2022 William S. Speros, Esq., and Ashley N. Solo, Esq., MacDonald Illig Jones & Britton, LLP, for the protester. Peter B. Ford, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for Sigma Science, Inc., the intervenor. Matthew VanWormer, Esq., and William Mayers, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s technical quotations is denied where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Although the evaluation of the awardee’s quotation used terminology that corresponded to the solicitation’s definition of a significant weakness, the contemporaneous record and the contracting officer’s response to the protest reasonably explain why the agency assessed a weakness, rather than a significant weakness. DECISION Vector Resources, Inc., of Englewood, Florida, challenges the issuance of a task order to Sigma Science, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico, by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89233122QNA000226, which was issued for technical and administrative support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors’ technical quotations and unreasonably selected Sigma’s quotation for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND NNSA issued the solicitation on November 18, 2021, seeking quotations to provide technical and administrative support services for the agency’s Y‑12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1.A, RFQ at 1. The services will support the Y-12 acquisition and project management office, which provides oversight for the critical infrastructure and modernization projects at the Y‑12 Complex. Contracting Officer’s Statement & Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3. Vector is the incumbent contractor for these requirements. Id. at 11. The solicitation was issued under the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, and was limited to vendors with Enterprise-Wide Technical and Engineering, and Programmatic Services blanket purchase agreements established with NNSA. RFQ at 13. The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a time-and-materials task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. Id. at 2-12. The solicitation advised vendors that quotations would be evaluated based on the following four criteria: (1) technical approach, (2) key personnel resumes, (3) past performance, and (4) price. AR, Tab 1.F, RFQ attach. 5, Instructions and Evaluation Criteria at 3. The technical approach criterion had three subcriteria: (1) organizational structure, which was for “informational purposes,” and not to be evaluated; (2) approach to performing sections 5.0, 6.0 and enclosure 1 of the performance work statement (PWS); and (3) staffing plan. Id. at 1. For purposes of award, the technical approach criterion was “significantly more important” than the other three criteria; the key personnel resumes and past performance criteria were “more important” than price; and all three non-price criteria, when combined, were “significantly more important” than price. Id. The RFQ also advised that “to the extent that the Vendors[’] quotes are evaluated close or similar in merit; price is more likely to be a determining factor.” Id. at 3-4. NNSA received quotations from four vendors by the closing date of December 17, including Vector and Sigma. AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 3.