IT Concepts, Inc. (12760423Q0231)

B-422152,B-422152.2 Jan 16, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IT Concepts, Inc., a small business of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Agility Technologies, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12760423Q0231, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for organizational management and support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations and made a flawed 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: IT Concepts, Inc. File: B-422152; B-422152.2 Date: January 16, 2024 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation; further, even assuming any errors, the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice in light of the solicitation’s highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price evaluation method. DECISION IT Concepts, Inc., a small business of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Agility Technologies, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12760423Q0231, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for organizational management and support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations and made a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on August 27, 2023, using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to holders of multiple‑award schedule contracts for information technology (IT) professional services, and amended it three times. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 14, RFQ[1] at 2. The RFQ sought quotations for the provision of an IT solution, including continuing support, hosting, and operations, through software‑as‑a‑service licenses or platform‑as‑a‑service in support of the agency’s human resource (HR) management. COS at 1; RFQ at 2. The RFQ, which was set aside for small business concerns, contemplated issuance of a single, fixed‑price task order with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. COS at 1; RFQ at 2‑5. The RFQ provided for issuance of the task order to the vendor whose quotation was the highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price. RFQ at 24. The RFQ set forth five non‑price factors to be used in evaluating quotations: (1) technical approach; (2) key personnel; (3) contractor resources; (4) past performance; and (5) adherence to Section 508.[2] Id. at 24‑26. The RFQ did not state any relative weight to be accorded those factors. With respect to the technical approach factor, the RFQ directed vendors to “describe the extent to which the technical approach is feasible and provides demonstrated benefits to the [g]overnment in alignment with the requirements.” Id. at 22. Quotations were limited to 16 pages for this section, including a performance work statement (PWS) and quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP). Id. The agency was to evaluate quotations under this factor based on the vendor’s “demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the [statement of objectives (SOO)] and deployment of technology tools, processes and products to successfully meet or exceed the [g]overnment’s defined requirements with minimal customization required.” Id. at 24. Additionally, the agency was to evaluate the extent to which the vendor’s PWS and QASP “align with the technical approach, achieve[] the [minimum viable product (MVP)] and compl[y] with the constraints in the SOO.” Id. Under the key personnel factor, vendors were to provide information regarding two key individuals--the project manager and senior technical lead--“describ[ing] the extent to which the [k]ey [p]ersonnel’s experience and expertise provide demonstrated benefits to the [g]overnment in alignment with the requirements.” Id. at 22. Vendors were to submit résumés for those key individuals, including, among other information, relevant education, credentials, and certifications. Id. at 25. Additionally, the RFQ directed vendors to provide descriptions of their staffing approach and organizational approach, including the roles and management of teaming partners.