American Tech Solutions, LLC (W900KK-23-R-0050)

B-422212,B-422212.2 Feb 27, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Tech Solutions, LLC (ATS), a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Knight Federal Solutions, Inc. (KFS), a small business of Orlando, Florida, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W900KK-22-R-0050, for information technology support services. The protester challenges the agency's conclusion that the quotations submitted by ATS and KFS were technically equal, and argues the agency failed to adequately document the basis for its award 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: American Tech Solutions, LLC File: B-422212; B-422212.2 Date: February 27, 2024 David B. Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey Law, PLLC, for the protester. Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for Knight Federal Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Margaret M. Talbot-Bedard, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations and best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation and decision were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION American Tech Solutions, LLC (ATS), a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Knight Federal Solutions, Inc. (KFS), a small business of Orlando, Florida, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W900KK-22-R-0050, for information technology support services. The protester challenges the agency’s conclusion that the quotations submitted by ATS and KFS were technically equal, and argues the agency failed to adequately document the basis for its award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The mission of the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) is to provide U.S. military forces with the “relevant, rigorous, multi-echelon training . . . to develop adaptive leaders, confident units, and robust capabilities across the range of military operations achieving Army readiness,” and conducts up to 11 training unit rotations annually. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. To achieve this, the JRTC must provide a mobile satellite communications capability to replicate the communications infrastructure found in expected areas of operation. Id. For this procurement, the agency seeks a contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, and supervision necessary to operate, maintain, and sustain JRTC’s integrated training networks. Id. The RFQ, issued on August 22, 2023, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures, was set aside for small businesses holding General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts under special item number 54151S, information technology professional services. AR, Tab 3, RFQ at 1.[1] The RFQ stated that the contract would be fixed-price, with a period of performance consisting of a 7-month base period, four 12-month option periods, and a 6-month option to extend services pursuant to FAR clause 52.217-8. Id. at 30, 32, 43. The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated under two factors, technical and price. Id. at 41. Under the technical factor, the following ratings would be assigned: good, acceptable, and unacceptable.[2] Id. at 42. Price would be evaluated for reasonableness. Id. at 43. The RFQ further stated that a best-value tradeoff source selection process would be used, the technical factor was significantly more important than price, and “award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offered, or the highest technically rated offeror.” Id. at 41. The agency received seven quotations, including from ATS and KFS. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 11. Following evaluation, both ATS and KFS received ratings of good under the technical factor. AR, Tab 7, Award Decision at 4. ATS quoted a price of $22,248,201, and KFS quoted a price of $21,393,822. Id. at 19. The source selection authority (SSA) selected KFS for award. Id. at 29. The agency provided ATS with a debriefing, and this protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the evaluation of quotations and the award decision and argues that the agency unreasonably considered the quotations submitted by ATS and KFS to be technically equal. Protest at 13-15, 19.