VSolvit, LLC (12SAD122Q0012)

B-421048,B-421048.2 Dec 06, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VSolvit, LLC, of Ventura, California, protests the issuance of a call order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12SAD122Q0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service (RUS), for information technology services for system enhancements and improvements. The protester principally objects to the agency's evaluation under the experience evaluation subfactor, and argues the agency improperly eliminated VSolvit from the competition without referring the firm to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review under the SBA's certificate of competency (COC) procedures. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: VSolvit, LLC File: B-421048; B-421048.2 Date: December 6, 2022 Casey J. McKinnon, Esq., and Stephen D. Tobin, Esq., Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Rhina M. Cardenal, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Deloitte Consulting LLP, the intervenor. Azine Farzami, Esq., Department of Agriculture; Christopher R. Clarke, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest arguing that the agency erred in declining to consider proposed subcontractors’ experience is dismissed as untimely where the protester did not file its protest with our Office within 10 days of receiving actual notice of adverse agency action on its de facto agency-level protest raised with the agency’s senior procurement executive. Supplemental protest allegations that the agency’s subsequent evaluation unreasonably considered subcontractor experience in a manner inconsistent with the agency’s previously communicated interpretation of the solicitation is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency could not eliminate the protester's quotation from the competition based on negative evaluation findings under alleged responsibility-like criteria without referring the matter to the Small Business Administration for review under its certificate of competency procedures is denied where the protester is not eligible for a review under those procedures. DECISION VSolvit, LLC, of Ventura, California, protests the issuance of a call order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12SAD122Q0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service (RUS), for information technology services for system enhancements and improvements. The protester principally objects to the agency’s evaluation under the experience evaluation subfactor, and argues the agency improperly eliminated VSolvit from the competition without referring the firm to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review under the SBA’s certificate of competency (COC) procedures. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation, on an unrestricted basis, on July 20, 2022, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to firms holding USDA’s Salesforce Portal Development and Support Services blanket purchase agreement (BPA), established under the General Service Administration’s (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) 70 contract. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Conformed RFQ at 1, 59.[1] The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price call order, with a 1‑year base period of performance and three 1-year option periods. Id. at 13. The solicitation sought contractor support for information technology development, modernization, and enhancement services. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. RFQ at 62-65. The technical factor included four subfactors: (a) experience; (b) technical approach; (c) qualifications; and (d) quality control.[2] Id. at 62-64. As relevant to this protest, under the experience subfactor, vendors were to provide up to five relevant and recently performed contract references, which the agency would evaluate “to determine how closely [the reference] matches the [performance work statement’s] requirements in scope and size.” Id. at 62.