Spatial Front, Inc. (12314422Q0063)

B-420921.2,B-420921.3 Dec 21, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Spatial Front, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to Technology Solutions Provider, Inc. (TSPi), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0063, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for conservation software delivery support services. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of TSPi's quotation and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain 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: Spatial Front, Inc. File: B-420921.2; B-420921.3 Date: December 21, 2022 Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Jason W. Moy, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for Technology Solutions Provider, Inc., an intervenor. Adam J. Hermann, Esq., and Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s issuance of a task order to a firm under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract is sustained where record shows the agency unreasonably determined that the services (labor categories) quoted by the firm to perform the requirements of the solicitation were within the scope of the awardee’s FSS contract. DECISION Spatial Front, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to Technology Solutions Provider, Inc. (TSPi), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314422Q0063, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for conservation software delivery support services. The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of TSPi’s quotation and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The USDA Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), help private landowners improve the health of farming operations while protecting natural resources for the future. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5.[1] Specifically, NRCS works with landowners and others through conservation planning and assistance to benefit the soil, water, air, plants, and animals for productive lands and healthy ecosystems. Id. In support thereof, the agency developed the “conservation practice implementation agile software delivery” PWS to obtain information technology (IT) support services for the development, modernization, enhancement, and maintenance of the agency’s various conservation programs. Id. The RFQ was issued on April 22, 2022, as a small business set-aside and using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to holders of USDA blanket purchase agreements (BPA) under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for IT.[2] AR, Tab 7, RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 7-month base period, with two 12-month options and two 3-month options.[3] RFQ at 4. In general terms, the PWS required the contractor to “provide experienced teams with the knowledge and skillsets required in this PWS, and that will deliver the most productive and successful IT services and solutions.” PWS at 6. The RFQ established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation criteria: prior experience; technical solution; and price. RFQ at 21-22. The technical solution factor consisted of two subfactors in descending order of importance: technical approach (oral presentation) and management plan. Id. at 22. 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. The USDA employed a two-phase, advisory selection process to conduct the competition. In the first phase, vendors were evaluated on the prior experience factor, and informed of their competitive viability.[4] In the second phase, vendors were evaluated on the technical solution and price factors. RFQ at 18-20; COS at 5. Five vendors, including TSPi and Spatial Front (the incumbent), submitted phase I quotations by the May 2 closing date of the solicitation. A technical evaluation board (TEB) assessed the vendors’ prior experience using an adjectival rating scheme that was set forth in the RFQ (and which applied to all non-price factors) as follows: high confidence; some confidence; and low confidence.