Sierra7, Inc. (RFQ 36C10B22Q0377)

B-421299 Mar 06, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ThunderCat Technology, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the elimination of its quotation from further consideration under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B22Q0377, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for "provisioning-as-a-service" activities to support delivery of VA endpoint devices to various VA locations. ThunderCat argues that the agency erred in failing to engage in adequate discussions with it prior to the elimination of its quotation. We dismiss the protest as untimely. 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: ThunderCat Technology, LLC File: B-421299 Date: March 6, 2023 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Mary G. Courtney, Esq., and Annemarie Drazenovich, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 that agency failed to engage in adequate discussions with protester is dismissed where the protest was not timely filed in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations. DECISION ThunderCat Technology, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the elimination of its quotation from further consideration under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B22Q0377, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for “provisioning-as-a-service” activities to support delivery of VA endpoint devices to various VA locations.[1] ThunderCat argues that the agency erred in failing to engage in adequate discussions with it prior to the elimination of its quotation. We dismiss the protest as untimely. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are straightforward and not in dispute. The RFQ contemplates the issuance, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a task order to provide the solicited services for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Firms were advised that quotations would be evaluated considering price and three non-price factors: compliance specification spreadsheet, written proposal, and past performance. RFQ at 120. The compliance specification spreadsheet factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, id., and is the only factor at issue in this protest. The RFQ required firms to submit a compliance specification spreadsheet. RFQ, attach. D, Compliance Specification Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet required firms to affirmatively represent whether they were offering products that conformed to the technical requirements detailed in each row of the spreadsheet, and also required firms to provide proof of conformance in the form of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specification sheets or other appropriate proof (such as required industry certifications) demonstrating that the offered products met the RFQ’s specifications. The record shows that the agency received a number of quotations in response to the RFQ and, after evaluation, determined that none of the quotations met all of the requirements of the specification compliance spreadsheet. Specifically, none of the quotations included adequate proof (such as OEM specifications sheets) for the agency to determine the acceptability of the offered products. The agency then engaged in several rounds of what it describes as exchanges with all firms submitting quotations. During those exchanges, the agency identified those instances where the agency could not determine the acceptability of the quoted items, and firms were permitted to provide the agency with additional proof (such as OEM specification sheets) in an effort to demonstrate the compliance of each item with the RFQ’s specifications. In addition, firms also were afforded an opportunity to revise their prices. At the conclusion of these exchanges, the agency eliminated ThunderCat’s quotation from further consideration. The record shows that, as to one of the components included with ThunderCat’s quotation (a video adaptor), the protester repeatedly sought to substitute a different component for the one originally identified in its initial quotation. The agency repeatedly refused to allow ThunderCat to substitute the different component, advising that the only changes that could be made to its quotation were either to the supporting documentation for the components originally included in its quotation, or to its price. After being advised of the elimination of its quotation from consideration and requesting and receiving a debriefing, ThunderCat filed the instant protest.[2] DISCUSSION ThunderCat argues that the agency engaged in discussions but failed to engage in adequate discussions.