Alethix LLC (12314422Q0062)

B-420920.3,B-420920.4 Dec 15, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alethix LLC, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) issuance of an order to Technology Solutions Provider, Inc. (TSPi), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0062 for software development support services. Alethix argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection 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: Alethix LLC File: B-420920.3; B-420920.4 Date: December 15, 2022 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James. A. Tucker, Esq., and Markus G. Speidel, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Daniel Strouse, Esq., Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Rhina Cardenal, Esq., and Jason W. Moy, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for Technology Solutions Provider, Inc., the intervenor. Azine Farzami, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging agency’s experience and technical evaluations are denied where protester has not demonstrated that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to perform a meaningful best-value tradeoff is denied where the record shows that the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION Alethix LLC, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) issuance of an order to Technology Solutions Provider, Inc. (TSPi), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0062 for software development support services. Alethix argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on April 22, 2022, under the federal supply schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, was limited to vendors holding farm production and conservation blanket purchase agreements. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 15-16.[1] In general terms, the solicitation sought quotations for development, modernization, enhancement, and maintenance information technology support services for USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation Business Center and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Id. at 1, 13-15; AR, Tab 3, RFQ attach. 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5-6. As relevant here, the contractor was required to provide--and support--systems “with significant financial business rules that need to be configurable to accommodate new and emerging Farm Bill program needs.”[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The agency refers to this work as the “Money” order.[3] Id. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price order with a 6-month base period and four 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 4, 14. The solicitation provided for a two-phase, best-value tradeoff source selection process, using the following evaluation factors: prior experience; technical solution; and price. Id. at 23-25. The prior experience factor was more important than the technical solution factor and, when combined, the non-price factors were more important than price. Id. at 23. In phase 1, the agency would only evaluate prior experience. Id. at 23‑24. After the phase 1 evaluation, the agency would issue an advisory notification to each vendor, identifying the “most capable” vendors that were invited to proceed to oral presentations and submission of phase 2 quotations.[4] Id. at 18. In phase 2, the agency would evaluate quotations under the technical solution and price factors. Id. at 18, 23-24. The RFQ advised that, for each non-price factor, the agency would “consider the benefits and risks associated with the [vendor’s] proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment of the [vendor’s] likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the requirements of the RFQ.” Id. at 23. The available confidence ratings for the non-price factors were: high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence. Id. For price, quotations would be evaluated to determine whether they were fair and reasonable. Id. at 24. Six vendors submitted phase 1 quotations; Alethix and TSPi were among the four that were advised to proceed to phase 2. AR, Tab 30, Award Decision at 2‑3. The table below summarizes the agency’s evaluation of Alethix’s and TSPi’s quotations for both phases:   Alethix TSPi PRIOR EXPERIENCE Some Confidence Some Confidence TECHNICAL SOLUTION Some Confidence Some Confidence PRICE $96,888,445 $82,378,602   Id. at 3.