Ernst & Young, LLP (HTC71123QD003)

B-422469,B-422469.2 Jul 03, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ernst & Young, LLP, of New York, New York, protests the award of a contract to KPMG LLC, of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HTC71123QD003, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for accounting and financial operations support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations, conduct of discussions, and resulting best-value tradeoff and 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: Ernst & Young, LLP File: B-422469; B-422469.2 Date: July 3, 2024 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., Erin L. Felix, Esq., Daniel H. Petkoff, Esq., and Olivia Velasco, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for KPMG LLP, the intervenor. Colonel Christine C. Piper, LeDara Y. Clark, Esq., Michael J. Farr, Esq., Robert J. Depke, Esq., and Patrick R. Gill, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of quotations under technical capability factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging agency's estimated labor hour allocations used in price evaluation is denied where the agency's basis for the labor hour estimates was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. 3. Protest alleging that agency improperly conducted discussions with only awardee is denied where, even if the exchange constituted discussions, the protester has not shown that it was competitively prejudiced by the agency's action. 4. Protest challenging agency's comparative analysis and source selection decision is denied where the agency's bestvalue tradeoff and source selection decision were reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Ernst & Young, LLP, of New York, New York, protests the award of a contract to KPMG LLC, of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HTC71123QD003, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for accounting and financial operations support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations, conduct of discussions, and resulting bestvalue tradeoff and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of the General Services Administration's (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services multipleaward indefinitedelivery, indefinitequantity (IDIQ) governmentwide acquisition contracts, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, RFQ at 1.[1] The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order consisting of fixedprice and timeandmaterials line items, for a 1month transition period, an 11month base period, and four 1year option periods, to provide contract support services for USTRANSCOM's accounting and financial operations. RFQ at 1. The solicitation advised that the task order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the agency, considering price and two nonprice factors, technical capability and past performance. Id. at 13. The solicitation provided that the agency would consider three subfactors under the technical capability factor: (1) technical approach; (2) contract level management; and (3) staffing approach and mission essential plan. Id. The solicitation stated that, for the purposes of the bestvalue tradeoff, the technical capability subfactors were of equal importance to each other, and when combined were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency was to evaluate the apparent successful vendor's past performance on a confidence/no confidence basis and a rating of no confidence would render a vendor ineligible for award. Id. at 1214. However, past performance would not otherwise be considered in the best-value tradeoff decision. Id. Technical capability quotations were to consist of Microsoft PowerPoint slides addressing the technical approach and contract level management subfactors along with separate written submissions addressing the staffing approach and mission essential plan subfactor. Id. at 89. The agency was to evaluate quotations under the technical capability factor based on the written submissions and an oral presentation given by each vendor. Id. at 13.