Crittenton Consulting Group, Inc. (47QFSA23Q0097)

B-422503 Jul 10, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crittenton Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI), a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The Rehancement Group, Inc. (TRG), a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFSA23Q0097 issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to provide records management services. CCGI challenges several aspects of the agency' 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: Crittenton Consulting Group, Inc. File: B422503 Date: July 10, 2024 Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., Katherine A. David, Esq., and Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Thomas M. Craig, Esq., and Emily A. Spence, Esq., Fluet & Associates, PLLC, for The Rehancement Group, Inc., the intervenor. Gavin S. Painter, Esq., and Jarrett R. Cook, Esq., General Services Administrration, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. WestfallMcGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest arguing that agency should have considered information in other sections of the protester's quotation in its evaluation of the protester's corporate experience and technical approach is denied where the agency was not required to search in other sections of the protester's quotation for additional information. 2. Protest challenging the agency's selection of a higherrated, higherpriced quotation for award is unobjectionable where the agency's tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Crittenton Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI), a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The Rehancement Group, Inc. (TRG), a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFSA23Q0097 issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to provide records management services. CCGI challenges several aspects of the agency's technical evaluation of quotations and argues the bestvalue decision is flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on November 21, 2023, under GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) ordering procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Tab 25, RFQ amend. 2 at 1.[1] The solicitation sought quotations from office management schedule contract holders and contemplated issuing a single laborhour task order with a 5year performance period. Id. at 1, 3. The procurement was to acquire records management services for the FBI's Information Management Division (IMD). AR, Tab 19, RFQ amend. 1, PWS at 6. The Information Services Section (ISS), within IMD, “oversee[s] the creation, maintenance, digitization, storage, and disposition of records in all media formats.” Id. ISS requires contractor assistance with, among other things, records lifecycle management, inventory, file services, image/document conversion, assistance preparing retention/dispositional archival schedules, and assistance with records retention/disposition. Id. The solicitation requested technical and price quotations. RFQ at 67. The RFQ provided for award on a bestvalue tradeoff basis comparing differences in technical merit with pricing differences. Id. at 19. The technical evaluation consisted of the following four factors of equal importance: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical expertise and solutions; (3) staffing and management strategies; and (4) key personnel. Id. at 7, 19. The agency would evaluate each technical factor individually and assign a confidence rating for each technical factor representing the agency's assessment of the vendor's probable success performing as described in its quotation.[2] Id. at 21. The technical factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price and the agency explained that it was “more concerned with obtaining superior nonprice features than with making an award at the lowest overall price to the Government.” Id. at 19. Price quotations were to be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR subsection 8.4052(d). Id. at 25. Before quotations were due, GSA provided vendors an opportunity to submit questions. Id. at 1. Vendors' questions and the agency's answers were incorporated in amendments 1 and 2, before the closing deadline for quotations on December 26. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 4. The agency received quotations from five vendors, including CCGI and TRG, by the December 26 due date. AR, Tab 60, Award Decision Document (ADD) at 89.