The Lioce Group, Inc. (19AQMM23Q0004)

B-421582 Jul 05, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Lioce Group, Inc. (TLG), a small business located in Huntsville, Alabama, protests the exclusion of its quotation submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM23Q0004, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to obtain multi-functional copier devices and associated maintenance services. TLG contends that the agency unreasonably excluded its quotation from the competition. 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: The Lioce Group, Inc. File: B-421582 Date: July 5, 2023 Isais Alba IV, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Daniel J. Figuenick, III, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Rhina Cardenal, Esq., Jason W. Moy, Esq., and Pablo Nichols, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Ameritel Corporation, the intervenor. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision to exclude the protester’s quotation from the competition is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s quotation failed to comply with the material terms of the solicitation. DECISION The Lioce Group, Inc. (TLG), a small business located in Huntsville, Alabama, protests the exclusion of its quotation submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM23Q0004, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to obtain multi-functional copier devices and associated maintenance services. TLG contends that the agency unreasonably excluded its quotation from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 21, 2022, DOS issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.405-3. The competition was limited to vendors holding a General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule (MAS) contract 532420LC, Office Management – Printing and Photographic Equipment. Agency Report (AR) Exh. 2, RFQ amend. 0002 at 3.[1] The solicitation sought quotations for a contractor to provide multi-functional copier devices and associated lifecycle maintenance services to support DOS’s headquarters, annexes, and field offices within the continental United States. AR Exh. 3, Statement of Work at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3-4. The RFQ provided for the establishment of a single BPA on a best-value basis for one base year and up to four 1-year options. RFQ at 4. Pertinent to this protest, the RFQ informed vendors as follows: All GSA contractor teaming arrangements (CTAs) must be specifically identified as such. DOS requires that all firms under a GSA CTA meet all BPA requirements. Additionally, team members in a GSA CTA must provide with their business quote a teaming arrangement, signed by all teaming companies, that identifies all team members, their corresponding GSA Schedule contract numbers, and fully details the duties and responsibilities of each team member and the teaming arrangement will be maintained throughout the life of the BPA. Note that at least one of the vendors under a proposed GSA [CTA] must have and maintain the MAS required by the RFQ: 532420LC Operating Lease Plan for Copiers. Id. at 8. In this regard, the RFQ’s general instructions provided: “if prime/subcontractor or GSA Schedule teaming arrangements are quoted, a teaming agreement shall be submitted as part of the quote, which clearly details the roles, responsibilities, and distribution of effort (by type and percentage) between the parties in performance of the Government’s requirement.” Id. at 10. Finally, as relevant to this protest, the RFQ incorporated the agency’s answers to multiple vendor questions. AR Exh. 4, Questions and Answers (Q&As). For example, with regard to teaming arrangements under this small business set-aside, the Q&As included the following exchanges: [Q:] Since this is a total small business set aside, please confirm that a small business GSA contractor with a clearance cannot sub-contract to a large business GSA contractor with or without a facility clearance to provide maintenance using the large business’ technicians? [A:] Yes, this award will be made only to a prime contractor that is listed in SAM as a total small business concern. The Government is not prohibiting the prime contractor from using a small or other than small business from providing maintenance.