Guidehouse Inc. (70FA6022Q00000004)

B-421132,B-421132.2 Dec 19, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Deloitte Consulting LLP under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FA6022Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for enterprise program and technical support services. Guidehouse challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and resulting best-value tradeoff 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: Guidehouse, Inc. File: B-421132; B-421132.2 Date: December 19, 2022 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye W. Howard, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Keith R. Szeliga, Esq, Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., and Shaunna Bailey, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for Deloitte Consulting LLP, the intervenor. Sarah S. Jaward, Esq., and Matthew Lane, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting best-value tradeoff is denied where the evaluation and tradeoff selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced quotation were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Guidehouse, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Deloitte Consulting LLP under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FA6022Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for enterprise program and technical support services. Guidehouse challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the solicitation seeking to establish a single BPA with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods under the successful vendor’s General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab D, RFQ at 1, 3.[1] The solicitation specified that it was seeking “[a] complete GSA solution,” which it defined as an approach not requiring any open market services or supplies. Id. at 1. The solicitation sought quotations for the provision of “Enterprise Program and Technical Support Services” for FEMA’s “Office of the Administrator/ Mission Support” for the following “cross functional lines of business and transition”: (1) strategic planning support; (2) program/project management and executive support; (3) policy development support; (4) business process re-engineering; (5) change management and strategic communications support; (6) internal controls and enterprise risk management; (7) Microsoft SharePoint improvement and engagement; (8) customer experience improvement; and (9) support onboarding, knowledge transfer and transition to contract successor or government. Id. at 1, 3. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and four non-price factors; the four non-price factors were of equal importance to one another, and combined were significantly more important than price. RFQ at 56-57. The solicitation established the following four non-price factors: (1) technical approach; (2) management plan; (3) staffing plan and key personnel; and (4) corporate experience. Id. For each of the non-price factors, the evaluators would assign quotations a rating of high, some, or low confidence. AR, Tab T, Technical Consensus Evaluation of Quotations (Tech. Eval.) at 3-4. Evaluators also would assess whether elements of the quotations increased, significantly increased, decreased, or significantly decreased confidence of successful performance.[2] Id. at 4. With respect to price, the solicitation set forth that the agency would evaluate for reasonableness and completeness. RFQ at 58. The agency received four quotations, including the two lowest-priced quotations submitted by Guidehouse and Deloitte. AR, Tab M, Award Decision at 5-6. The evaluators assessed Guidehouse’s and Deloitte’s quotations as follows:   Guidehouse Deloitte Technical Approach Some Confidence High Confidence Management Plan Some Confidence High Confidence Staffing Plan and Key Personnel High Confidence High Confidence Corporate Experience High Confidence High Confidence Price $46,342,782 $50,734,805   Id. at 5.