Tripoint Solutions, LLC (89233123RNA000168)

B-422616 Aug 28, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cadre5, LLC, a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Tripoint Solutions LLC (Tripoint), a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89233123RNA000168 issued by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for Agile software development support services. Cadre5 argues that the agency's evaluation of technical quotations and best-value tradeoff analysis are unreasonable. We sustain 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: Cadre5, LLC File: B-422616 Date: August 28, 2024 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Alissandra Y. McCann, Esq., and Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Carla Weiss, Esq., Robert Nichols, Esq., and Logan Kemp, Esq., Nichols Liu, LLP, for Tripoint Solutions LLC, the intervenor. Jose A. Figueroa, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of protester's quotation under the technical understanding factor is sustained where the agency's evaluation documentation was inadequate to support the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. DECISION Cadre5, LLC, a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Tripoint Solutions LLC (Tripoint), a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89233123RNA000168 issued by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for Agile software development support services. Cadre5 argues that the agency's evaluation of technical quotations and bestvalue tradeoff analysis are unreasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND NNSA's program management information system generation 2 (G2) project builds, maintains, and enhances the G2 system, which is used across the agency to manage its annual appropriations for mission activities by providing program and performance management information to the agency and its subordinate organizations. Agency Report (AR), Tab 19, Conformed RFQ at 30.[1] This procurement is for software development support to the G2 project to “build new functionality while maintaining and improving existing areas of the system” following scale agile framework (SAFe®) principles and practices. Id. On February 8, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to small businesses on the General Services Administration multiple award schedule for special item number 54151S, information technology professional services. Id. at 19; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1.[2] The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single timeandmaterials task order for a oneyear base period and four oneyear option periods. Conformed RFQ at 5, 26. The solicitation provided that quotations would be evaluated in two phases and that award would be made to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value to the government. See Id. at 19, 28; COS at 12. Quotations would be evaluated on the following three criteria, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical understanding; (2) relevant experience; and (3) cost/price.[3] Conformed RFQ at 2627. The solicitation advised that each non-price factor would be assigned an adjectival rating, and that, when combined, the nonprice factors “are significantly more important than price; however, as non-price factors are close or similar in merit, price is more likely to be a determining factor.” Id. at 26, 28. The solicitation cautioned that the government would not make award to a vendor “at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior performance.” Id. Price quotations were to be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with any of the price analysis techniques in FAR section 15.404-1 and for unbalanced pricing in accordance with subsection 15.4041(g). Id. at 28. The agency received timely quotations from four vendors, including Cadre5, which is the incumbent contractor, and Tripoint. AR, Tab 20, Revised Phase 1 Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Rept. at 2; AR, Tab 30, Phase 2 TEP Rept. at 2. Using the adjectival ratings set forth in the RFQ, the TEP evaluated vendors' quotations under the non-price factors as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Conformed RFQ at 2829. A separate cost/price analyst evaluated the price quotations and determined that the prices submitted were fair and reasonable, and that no firm submitted unbalanced pricing.