NetCentrics Corporation (29FTC122Q0002)

B-421172.2,B-421172.3 Oct 23, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NetCentrics Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Leidos, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 29FTC122Q0002, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information technology (IT) services and solutions. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated quotations, and that the agency's organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigation with respect to the awardee was unreasonable. 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: NetCentrics Corporation File: B-421172.2; B-421172.3 Date: October 23, 2023 Seth H. Locke, Esq., Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., Joshuah R. Turner, Esq., and Jedidiah Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Lisa M. Rechden, Esq., Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Leidos Inc., the intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Robin Moore, Esq., Marie Choi, Esq., and Michael Lezaja, Esq., Federal Trade Commission, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of quotations and best-value determination is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and the challenge to the best-value determination is derivative of the evaluation challenges. 2. Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s organizational conflict of interest investigation is denied where the agency reasonably found the awardee’s work under a previous task order did not result in the awardee having access to nonpublic, competitively useful information. DECISION NetCentrics Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Leidos, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 29FTC122Q0002, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information technology (IT) services and solutions. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated quotations, and that the agency’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigation with respect to the awardee was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2022, the FTC issued the RFQ to holders of the agency’s information technology support services (ITSS) BPA pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subsection 8.405-3. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3.[1] The procurement represented the ninth task order issued under the FTC ITSS BPA and the RFQ sought quotations for enterprise user support services. RFQ at 3. The agency anticipated issuing a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials task order for 12 months, with up to eight 12-month options. Id. at 2. The RFQ advised that the FTC intended to issue an order to the responsible vendor whose quotation conformed to the solicitation and was “most advantageous to the [g]overnment (i.e., that which represents the best value to the [g]overnment), price and other factors considered.” Id. at 116. The RFQ’s non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and (3) relevant experience/past performance. Id. The RFQ informed vendors that when combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than the price factor. Id. The RFQ also advised that vendors were required to provide oral presentations; however, oral presentations would not be evaluated as a separate factor, but rather the information presented would support the factors to which the content was related. Id. at 90, 116. The RFQ provided an adjectival rating scheme for the FTC’s evaluation of the non‑price factors. Id. at 119. For the technical approach and management approach factors, a vendor’s quotation could receive a rating of unsatisfactory, satisfactory, very good, or exceptional, depending on its proposed approach. Id. at 119-120. For the relevant experience and past performance factor, a vendor’s quotation could receive a rating of neutral, unsatisfactory, satisfactory, very good, or excellent, depending on its performance record and relevant experience examples provided. Id. at 121. The RFQ also provided definitions for deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths, which could be assigned to various aspects of a vendor’s quotation, and which would be a factor in determining which adjectival rating to assign to a quotation.[2] Id.