Allicent Technology, LLC (RFQ-8296)

B-421944.2 Jan 22, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allicent Technology, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Golden IT, LLC, a small business of Olathe, Kansas, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8296, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for information technology (IT) engineering services in support of the IRS's solution engineering program. Allicent challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and resulting 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Allicent Technology, LLC File: B-421944.2 Date: January 22, 2024 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Michael E. Hatch, Esq., and Brian S. Yu, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Golden IT, LLC, the intervenor. Justin M. Wakefield, Esq., Nickolas S. Card, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting best-value tradeoff is denied where the evaluation, and the tradeoff selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced quotation, were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Allicent Technology, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Golden IT, LLC, a small business of Olathe, Kansas, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8296, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for information technology (IT) engineering services in support of the IRS’s solution engineering program.[1] Allicent challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on March 16, 2023, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking to establish a single BPA with a 12‑month base ordering period and four 12‑month option ordering periods under the successful vendor’s General Services Administration federal supply schedule (FSS) contract. AR, Tab E.1, RFQ at 3‑4.[2] The solicitation sought quotations for the provision of professional engineering services in support of the IRS’s solutions engineering program, which is responsible for the design and engineering functions of major IRS IT programs, platforms, and applications. COS at 2; RFQ at 5‑7. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following three non‑price factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and, (3) past performance. RFQ at 9‑10. For the purposes of the tradeoff, the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 9. During the evaluation, the agency was to identify quotation attributes considered to be strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies. Id. at 10. As relevant here, the solicitation defined a weakness as “an attribute of the [vendor’s quotation] which is likely to increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance.” Id. For the technical approach factor, vendors were to “describe their technical solution for completing the work described in [section three] of the Performance Work Statement (PWS),” including to specifically provide a “proposed solution for each functional area” identified by the PWS.[3] RFQ at 10. The RFQ provided that vendors “shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed and any knowledge or experience with any of the programs or systems discussed in the PWS.” Id. For the past performance factor, the RFQ provided that the agency would evaluate whether vendors’ recent and relevant past performance demonstrated the “application of knowledge and expertise in the areas listed in the PWS.”[4] RFQ at 13. The solicitation stated that the agency could base its evaluation of past performance upon completed past performance questionnaires (PPQs), past performance information found in contractor performance assessment reports (CPARs), or “upon any other resource available.” Id. The RFQ specified that the agency could “consider information . . . from any one or multiple sources and is not restricted to information” from any particular source. Id. at 13‑14.