HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc. (USCA21Q0014)

B-421221.4,B-421221.5 Apr 25, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc. (HII Mission), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests its non-selection for the establishment of a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. USCA21Q0014, which was issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for information technology (IT) support and services. HII Mission challenges the AOUSC's evaluation of its technical quotation, as well as the agency's best-value tradeoff 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. The entire decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc. File: B-421221.4; B-421221.5 Date: April 25, 2023 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, for the protester. Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc., the intervenor. Julie A. Neville, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the agency. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Challenge to agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows that the decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc. (HII Mission), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests its non-selection for the establishment of a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. USCA21Q0014, which was issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for information technology (IT) support and services.[1] HII Mission challenges the AOUSC’s evaluation of its technical quotation, as well as the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. On April 1, 2021, the AOUSC issued the RFQ to firms holding General Services Administration federal supply schedule contracts pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. The solicitation contemplated the establishment of at least three BPAs to provide IT support and services to the federal judiciary nationwide. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3.0.1, RFQ at 2. [2] Vendors were instructed to submit quotations in three volumes, to contain a business quotation, technical quotation, and price quotation. Id. at 14. Technical quotations were to have three parts: the vendor’s technical approach for sample BPA call one (Enterprise Operations Center, or EOC); the vendor’s technical approach for sample BPA call two (Case Management Systems Office, or CMSO); and the vendor’s BPA management approach. Id. The solicitation provided that the agency would make its source selection decision using a best-value tradeoff, which would consider four factors, each corresponding to one of the three parts of the technical quotation volume, and price (i.e., technical approach for call one; technical approach for call two; and BPA management approach). Id. at 15. The RFQ established that the two sample BPA call factors were equally important, and when combined, were more important than the BPA management approach factor. Id. The nonprice factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The AOUSC received quotations from 23 vendors, including HII Mission, by the deadline for submission. See COS at 3. The agency formed separate technical evaluation teams (TETs) to evaluate quotations under each of the technical factors. Supp. COS at 1. As relevant here, the evaluators rated HII Mission’s quotation as marginal under the sample BPA call technical approach EOC factor. COS at 3. After evaluating the quotations, the AOUSC established BPAs with four of the vendors and informed the other vendors, including HII Mission, that their quotations had not been selected. Id. at 4-5. On October 11, 2022, HII Mission filed a protest with the AOUSC.[3] Id. at 1; see also AR, Tab 7.1, AOUSC Protest. The AOUSC took corrective action in response to that protest, in the form of reevaluating the protester’s quotation under the technical approach for call one factor. COS at 1. The reevaluation, which occurred while the agency-level protest was pending, confirmed the TET’s prior findings, and on January 9, 2023, the AOUSC denied the protest and advised HII Mission of the decision. Id.; see also AR, Tab 7.2, AOUSC Protest Decision.