iSenpai, LLC (FA830722R0199)

B-421123 Dec 28, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights iSenpai, LLC, a small business of Manassas, Virginia, protests its non-selection for the establishment of a basic ordering agreement (BOA) under Department of the Air Force request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8307-22-R-0199 for software development, security, and operations (DevSecOps) services. iSenpai argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and failed to document that evaluation. 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: iSenpai, LLC File: B-421123 Date: December 28, 2022 Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for the protester. Colonel Frank Yoon, Major Ashley M. Ruhe, Major Alissa J. Schrider, and Laura L. Atkinson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Protest challenging non-selection for the establishment of a basic ordering agreement is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION iSenpai, LLC, a small business of Manassas, Virginia, protests its non-selection for the establishment of a basic ordering agreement (BOA) under Department of the Air Force request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8307-22-R-0199 for software development, security, and operations (DevSecOps) services. iSenpai argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and failed to document that evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on August 15, 2022, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16, sought to establish multiple BOAs with qualified vendors interested in providing DevSecOps services for the Air Force. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ Instructions at 1. The RFQ provided for a three-step evaluation process. AR, Tab 13, Final RFQ Instructions at 4-5. First, the Air Force would review quotations for compliance with the terms of the RFQ (e.g., page limits and font sizes). Id. Second, the Air Force would evaluate compliant quotations for technical capability, assigning a rating of highly capable, capable, or not capable. Id. at 5-6. Only vendors with a rating of highly capable would be invited to the third step, the oral presentation/portfolio review. Id. The Air Force received 136 compliant quotations, including one from iSenpai, by the September 7, deadline for receipt of quotations. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5-6. The agency evaluated and assigned iSenpai’s quotation a rating of capable. AR, Tab 16, Technical Evaluation at 3. As a result, the agency did not invite iSenpai to participate in the next step of the competition, notifying iSenpai on September 20 that it was eliminated from further consideration. AR, Tab 17, Notice at 1. This protest followed. DISCUSSION iSenpai challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation, asserting that the agency did not adequately document the evaluation and should have assigned a rating of highly capable to iSenpai’s quotation. Protest at 7-10; Comments at 2-9. We have considered the allegations raised by iSenpai and although we do not discuss them all, we find no basis to sustain the protest. Documentation As an initial matter, iSenpai complains that the evaluation is inadequately documented. Protest at 9-10; Comments at 8-9. Noting that the agency received 136 compliant quotations by the September 7, deadline for receipt of quotations and notified vendors of their evaluation results on September 20, the protester asserts that a “time crunch” prevented the agency from creating an evaluation record that “provide[d] insight” on the basis for the agency’s evaluation judgments. Protest at 9-10; Comments at 8-9. Relevant here, the RFQ required a technical capability narrative that “provide[d] as specifically as possible [the vendor’s] capabilities to meet the general scope” of the BOA, including “an ability to hire and maintain qualified personnel, and be co-located in various geographic locations.” AR, Tab 13, Final RFQ Instructions at 4. According to the solicitation, the Air Force would assign a rating of highly capable if the quotation “thoroughly demonstrate[d] a technical approach that indicate[d] an exceptional understanding of the outlined objectives in the” statement of objectives (SOO), including “an exceptional mechanism for hiring and retaining highly capable personnel to perform services” and ability to support work in multiple locations. Id. at 6.