Done By Native, LLC (19M05523Q0006)

B-422270 Mar 29, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Done By Native, LLC, of Clovis, New Mexico, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Global Training Services/Berlitz, of Rabat, Morocco, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19M05523Q0006, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for foreign language instruction in French for adult students at the United States Embassy in Rabat. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 8. The protester, the incumbent contractor, argues that DOS misevaluated its quotation as unacceptable and improperly awarded the contract to Global at its higher price. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Done By Native, LLC File: B-422270 Date: March 29, 2024 Louay Azar for the protester. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s technical quotation as unacceptable is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria. DECISION Done By Native, LLC, of Clovis, New Mexico, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Global Training Services/Berlitz, of Rabat, Morocco, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19M05523Q0006, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for foreign language instruction in French for adult students at the United States Embassy in Rabat. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 8. The protester, the incumbent contractor, argues that DOS misevaluated its quotation as unacceptable and improperly awarded the contract to Global at its higher price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on June 16, 2023, sought quotations to provide both individual and small-group French language classes through virtual and in-person settings for the embassy community. A single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract would be awarded to the firm whose quotation was acceptable and offered the lowest price.[1] RFQ at 1 (cover letter). The RFQ incorporated the standard offeror instructions provision for commercial item procurements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1, and an addendum instructing vendors that “[e]ach offer must consist of the following,” followed by a list of required information. The list included the vendor’s financial statements for the past three years, the vendor’s plan to obtain all licenses and permits required by local law, and a performance plan that identified the types and quantities of equipment, materials, and supplies to be used in performance. RFQ at 37-38. DOS received quotations from seven vendors. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. A technical evaluation panel reviewed all quotations. Id. In evaluating Done By Native’s quotation, the panel reported that the quotation failed to provide a plan to obtain local permits and licenses, failed to provide three years of financial statements, and failed to identify the types and quantities of equipment, supplies, and materials the firm would use to perform the contract, among other things. AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Panel Report at 1. Ultimately the panel concluded that six of the seven quotations were unacceptable: the exception being the quotation from Global. Id. at 1‑2. The contracting officer reviewed the technical evaluation panel’s findings in detail, concurred that only Global’s quotation was acceptable, and awarded the contract at a total evaluated price of MAD 5,564,160, which equated to $547,653 U.S. dollars using then-current rates. After receiving notice of the award, Done By Native filed this protest, arguing that it should have received the contract because it submitted a technically acceptable and lower-priced quotation, at a total evaluated price of MAD 2,790,207 (or approximately $281,000).[2] Protest at 3. DISCUSSION Timing of Protest As an initial matter, DOS argues that the protest should be dismissed because it was filed before the agency could provide the firm with a required debriefing. Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2), specify that a protest shall not be filed before a requested debriefing that is a required debriefing. DOS contends that those circumstances apply here--in particular, that the protester requested a debriefing, and one is legally required but has not occurred. Req. for Dismissal at 2. Done By Native disputes that assertion, and argues that a debriefing is not legally required, and therefore it could not wait to file the protest, otherwise its protest would be untimely. Accordingly, we first address our timeliness rules, the legal requirements for a debriefing, and the connections between them. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests.