LMI Consulting, LLC (47QFDA22Q0035)

B-421233,B-421233.2,B-421233.4,B-421233.5 Jan 24, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LMI Consulting, LLC, of Tysons, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Patricio Enterprises, Inc., of Stafford, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFDA22Q0035, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, for supply chain, logistics, distribution, and coordination support services. LMI maintains that the agency misevaluated Patricio's quotation and made an unreasonable 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: LMI Consulting, LLC File: B-421233; B-421233.2; B-421233.4; B-421233.5 Date: January 24, 2023 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., William B. O’Reilly, Esq., and David H. Favre, III, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Lisa M. Rechden, Esq., and Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for Patricio Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor. Stephene G. Parry, Esq., General Services Administraton, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION LMI Consulting, LLC, of Tysons, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Patricio Enterprises, Inc., of Stafford, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFDA22Q0035, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, for supply chain, logistics, distribution, and coordination support services.[1] LMI maintains that the agency misevaluated Patricio’s quotation and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ contemplates the establishment, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a BPA for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, to provide supply chain, logistics, distribution, and coordination support services. Competition was confined to firms holding GSA federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts. Firms were advised that award would be based on consideration of price, and a single non-price factor, corporate experience, which was deemed significantly more important than price.[2] RFQ at 42. The RFQ advised that prices would be evaluated for reasonableness, and included a sample task order that was used solely to calculate total evaluated price for purposes of establishing the BPA. RFQ at 43; Attach. C, Supplies or Services by Function Excel Workbook, Sample Task Order Calculation Sheet. Firms also were required to provide hourly rates for all of the labor categories specified for each of the four functional domains on which a quotation was being submitted. RFQ at 37-38; Attach. C, Supplies or Services by Function Excel Workbook, Functional Domain Pricing Worksheets. These hourly rates could not exceed the hourly rates included in the vendor’s FSS contract, and the agency encouraged firms to offer discounts to those rates. Id. For the corporate experience factor, the RFQ provided that firms were required to submit two corporate experience examples, to be detailed in a corporate experience template that was included with the solicitation. RFQ at 40; Attach. E, Corporate Experience Template. Corporate experience would be evaluated using a two-phase evaluation process. In the first phase (which was described as a pass/fail evaluation), the corporate experience examples would be evaluated for relevance. RFQ at 44-45. In the second phase, corporate experience would be evaluated for merit, and assigned adjectival ratings of excellent, good or poor. RFQ at 45-46. In response to the solicitation, the agency received three quotations, one of which was eliminated during the pass/fail phase of the evaluation. The remaining two quotations, submitted by LMI and Patricio, were evaluated on the merits. The record shows that each firm received a rating of excellent for one of their respective corporate experience examples, and a rating of good for their other respective example. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 4, Source Selection Decision Document, at 18. LMI submitted an evaluated price of $11,088,480, while Patricio submitted an evaluated price of $10,797,196. Id.