Significance Inc. (M9549422Q0023)

B-421307,B-421307.2 Mar 03, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Significance, Inc., a woman-owned small business (WOSB) of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Redwood Strategy Group, LLC, a WOSB of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M95494-22-Q-0023. The United States Marine Corps issued the RFQ for financial management support services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating Redwood's past performance, and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Significance Inc. File: B-421307; B-421307.2 Date: March 3, 2023 Tenley A. Carp, Esq., Justin F. Ferraro, Esq., and Dymond A. Anthony, Esq., Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Mary E. Buxton, Esq., and Robert Starling, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Redwood Strategy Group, LLC, the intervenor. Amanda Belanger, Esq., and Emmalyn McCarthy, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Significance, Inc., a woman-owned small business (WOSB) of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Redwood Strategy Group, LLC, a WOSB of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M95494-22-Q-0023. The United States Marine Corps issued the RFQ for financial management support services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating Redwood’s past performance, and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 1, 2022, the agency issued the RFQ as a set-aside for WOSBs using the commercial acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subpart 13.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 1; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period and two 1-year option periods. RFQ at 7, 41. The RFQ provided that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the following factors: (1) technical capabilities and management approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 41. The solicitation explained that the non-price factors were of equal importance to each other, but that the non-price factors when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 41-42. Additionally, the RFQ provided that as the technical approach and past performance differences narrowed, price would become more important, and that the agency would not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior technical features. Id. With respect to past performance, the RFQ directed vendors to either identify up to three recent, relevant past performance efforts or to affirmatively state that they lacked recent, relevant past performance. RFQ at 39. Relevant to this protest, the RFQ did not explain how vendors who lacked recent, relevant past performance would be evaluated, but noted that “[c]ontractors and [s]ubcontractors who have successfully performed requirements similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity will be evaluated more favorably.” RFQ at 41. Additionally, the RFQ and associated questions and answers clarified that vendors could submit past performance references for work which they performed as a subcontractor rather than as a prime contractor. RFQ at 39-40; AR, Tab 3, Questions and Answers at 3. On August 5, 2022, the agency received and evaluated five quotations, including quotations from the protester and awardee. MOL at 7. The protester’s and awardee’s prices were $8,978,236.80 and $6,912,294.03 respectively, and the technical quotations of both the protester and awardee were rated as “Outstanding.” AR, Tab 9, Award Decision Document at 1. Of note, the agency did not assign adjectival ratings for past performance, but instead used a narrative approach. See Id. at 4. Concerning the protester’s past performance, the agency found all three references that the protester provided to be recent and relevant, and the evaluators concluded that the available contractor performance assessment reports (CPARs) were overwhelmingly positive. Id. This led the agency to conclude that it had a “high degree of confidence” in the protester’s ability to perform the requirement.