SamKnows, Inc. (273FCC23Q0004)

B-421595 Jul 17, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SamKnows Inc., of Washington, DC, protests the award of a contract to MOZARK PTE Ltd., of Singapore, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 273FCC23Q0004, issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), for a broadband data collection (BDC) speed test mobile application. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical submission and the resulting award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: SamKnows Inc. File: B-421595 Date: July 17, 2023 Alex Salter for the protester. Kelly Zeng, Esq., and Hilary Martinson, Esq., Federal Communications Commission, for the agency. Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s challenge to the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION SamKnows Inc., of Washington, DC, protests the award of a contract to MOZARK PTE Ltd., of Singapore, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 273FCC23Q0004, issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), for a broadband data collection (BDC) speed test mobile application. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical submission and the resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on February 17, 2023, as a combined synopsis/solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, in conjunction with the simplified acquisition procedures prescribed in FAR subpart 13.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4.a, RFQ at 1.[1] Issued as an unrestricted, full and open competition, the solicitation sought fixed-price offers[2] for a BDC speed test mobile application. Id.; AR, Tab 4.a.1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. Specifically, the agency sought a contractor with the capability to develop, operate, and maintain a publicly available mobile speed test application (“app”) for Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS operated devices. PWS at 4. This app would measure and collect data on mobile wireless broadband availability and connectivity performance throughout the United States. Id. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single contract, with an anticipated period of performance consisting of a 1-year base period and up to four 1-year option periods. RFQ at 1. Using the comparative evaluation process outlined in FAR section 13.106-2(b)(3), the agency intended to select the offer that was “most advantageous to the Government,” when considering the following two evaluation factors: technical capability and price. Id. at 2-3. Five firms, including the protester and awardee, submitted offers by the March 14, 2023 due date. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. The contracting officer, who was the source selection authority (SSA), concluded that MOZARK’s offer represented the best value to the government. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. On March 31, the agency awarded the contract to MOZARK, in the amount of $5,224,000. AR, Tab 10.b, Brief Explanation of Award at 1. On the same day, the agency notified disappointed offerors of the award decision. COS at 3. On April 3, the agency provided SamKnows with a brief explanation of the basis of award pursuant to section 13.106-3(d) of the FAR. Id. SamKnows filed an agency-level protest, challenging the award decision, which the agency subsequently denied on April 7. AR, Tab 8.c, Agency-Level Protest Denial at 1, 8. On April 10, SamKnows filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the evaluation of its technical offer, as well as the resulting award decision. Specifically, SamKnows argues that the agency unreasonably identified three disadvantages with its offer. Protest at 5. Had the agency performed a proper evaluation, the protester claims its lower-priced offer would have been selected for award. Id. at 1. We have considered the arguments and issues raised by SamKnows, and while we do not address them all, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest. Technical Evaluation SamKnows contends the evaluation of its technical offer was unreasonable because, according to the protester, none of the three assessed disadvantages was warranted. Protest at 5. The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated SamKnows’s offer consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. COS at 13-21. When using simplified acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement in a fair and equitable manner, and must evaluate offers in accordance with the solicitation’s terms. SSI Tech., Inc., B-412765.2, July 13, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 184 at 3.