TechTrend, Inc. (12760423Q0051)

B-421773,B-421773.2 Sep 11, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TechTrend, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Dynamo Technologies LLC of Vienna, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12760423Q0051, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, for information technology support services. TechTrend protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation and 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: TechTrend, Inc. File: B-421773; B-421773.2 Date: September 11, 2023 Jonathan M. Baker, Esq., and Allison A. Skager, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Marques O. Peterson, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., and Aleksey R. Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Dynamo Technologies LLC, the intervenor. Azine Farzami, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation and source selection decision is denied where the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, which established an award methodology based on the highest technically rated quotation with a fair and reasonable price. DECISION TechTrend, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Dynamo Technologies LLC of Vienna, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12760423Q0051, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, for information technology support services. TechTrend protests various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 22, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the RFQ as a small disadvantaged business set-aside under the General Services Administration’s Multiple Award Schedule 54151S (information technology professional services). Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, RFQ amend. 5 at 4.[1] The RFQ sought a contractor to support the Application Development and Application Services branches of the Forest Service’s Chief Information Office, Mission Support Systems directorate. Id.; see AR, Tab 8, RFQ amend. 1, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS). The contractor’s responsibilities would include operations and maintenance of deployed applications, agile development of new applications, and support for application architecture and program management. PWS at 3. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a hybrid labor-hour and fixed-price delivery order with a 12-month base period of performance, six 12-month option periods, and an optional 6-month extension. RFQ at 4. The RFQ stated that the agency anticipated selecting one vendor “whose entire quote is the most advantageous to the Government, technical and price factors considered,” and that “[t]he best value basis for a delivery order award will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offeror with Fair and Reasonable Pricing.” Id. at 28. The RFQ further provided that, in identifying the highest technically rated quotations, the agency would consider the following evaluation factors: technical approach; management approach; key personnel; oral presentation; and adherence to Section 508.[2] Id. Each non-price factor would be evaluated and assigned a confidence rating of significant confidence, moderate confidence, limited confidence, or unacceptable. Id. at 29-30. On or before the March 16 closing date for quotations, the agency received quotations from multiple vendors. After conducting a compliance review, the agency evaluated the 16 quotations that were found compliant and assigned overall ratings of significant confidence to four of the quotations, including those submitted by Dynamo and TechTrend.[3] AR, Tab 25, Technical Evaluation Memo. at 3-4. Of note, the evaluators assigned ratings of significant confidence under each of the non-price factors to the quotations submitted by Dynamo and TechTrend, and ranked the quotations based on the evaluation of the non-price factors, with Dynamo ranked first and TechTrend second. Id. The evaluators also found that Dynamo’s price of $44,349,986 and TechTrend’s price of $48,969,666 were both fair and reasonable. Id.