Manutek Inc. (15JA0523Q00000105)

B-422096,B-422096.2 Jan 05, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Manutek Inc., a small disadvantaged business of Canton, Michigan, protests the rejection of its quotation as technically unacceptable under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15JA0523Q00000105, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for information technology services. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Manutek Inc. File: B-422096; B-422096.2 Date: January 5, 2024 Manohar Gaddam, Manutek Inc., for the protester. William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for AvantGarde, LLC, the intervenor. Allan B. K. Urgent, Esq., Dulce Donovan, Esq., and Telly Renfroe, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where record shows the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION Manutek Inc., a small disadvantaged business of Canton, Michigan, protests the rejection of its quotation as technically unacceptable under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15JA0523Q00000105, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for information technology services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2023, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to 8(a) firms with indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resource for Services (STARS) III governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) vehicle.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab B.1, Initial RFQ at 8, 25; see also Tab C, Final RFQ at 314.[2] The solicitation sought quotations for the provision of “expert program management, application development and support skill sets” to DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys’ enterprise application development (EAD) team, as well as the performance of “website development and support skill sets for USANET [the United States Attorneys Intranet].” AR, Tab C, Final RFQ at 315. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a labor-hour task order with fixed‑priced hourly rates, a 1-year base period, and four 1-year option periods. AR, Tab C, Final RFQ at 318. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following non-price factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) staffing and key personnel; and (3) past performance. Id. at 359-361. The three non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 360. For each non-price factor, quotations would be evaluated and assigned a “Combined Technical/Risk Rating,” ranging from a rating of outstanding to unacceptable. Id. at 361. The agency received 22 quotations, including those submitted by the protester, Manutek, and the awardee, AvantGarde. AR, Tab G, Award Decision at 545. The evaluators assessed two strengths, two weakness, and three deficiencies in Manutek’s quotation, and assigned it an overall rating of unacceptable.[3] AR, Tab E, Consensus Technical Evaluation Report at 491. Manutek quoted a total price of $21,224,548.23, the second lowest price of the 22 quotations submitted. AR, Tab F.2, Manutek Price Quotation at 539; Tab A, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. The evaluators assigned AvantGarde’s quotation an overall rating of outstanding. AR, Tab G, Award Decision at 548. After conducting a tradeoff analysis among the quotations that were “rated above Acceptable,” the contracting officer, who was also the source selection official (SSO), found AvantGarde’s highest-rated quotation to be the best value. Id. at 546-553. The SSO concluded that “the additional benefits offered by AvantGarde with superior Key Personnel qualifications warranted the additional price premium over the next highest technically rated offer,” and selected AvantGarde’s quotation for award at a price of $37,412,394.73 (which was below the independent government cost estimate). Id. at 551-553. After being notified of the award decision, Manutek filed this protest with our Office.[4] DISCUSSION Manutek takes issue with the agency’s assessment of weaknesses and deficiencies in the vendor’s quotation.[5] The protester contends that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring a specific level of detail not set out in the solicitation, and Manutek maintains that its quotation provided all the information required by the RFQ. Additionally, the protester argues it was unreasonable for the agency to not consider Manutek’s quotation in the best-value tradeoff, because Manutek had quoted a much lower price than the awardee.