AOC Solutions, Inc. (RFQ-1679927)

B-422761,B-422761.2 Oct 18, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AOC Solutions, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Castro & Company, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 1679927, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for financial management and internal controls support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of AOC's quotation and best-value determination. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: AOC Solutions, Inc. File: B-422761; B-422761.2 Date: October 18, 2024 Gerald M. Ritzert, Esq. and Robert B. Walker Jr., Esq., Gombos Leyton, PC, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Joseph P. Loman, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Castro & Company, LLC, the intervenor. Marie Choi, Esq., and Michael Lezaja, Esq., Federal Trade Commission, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, 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 under solicitation’s technical and management approach factor is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation under solicitation’s past performance factor is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. 3. Protest challenging agency’s source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION AOC Solutions, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Castro & Company, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 1679927, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for financial management and internal controls support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of AOC’s quotation and best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 20, 2024, the FTC issued the RFQ through the General Services Administration eBuy system as a small business set-aside under multiple award schedule category 541219 for budget and financial management services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 3; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2. In general terms, the performance work statement (PWS) requires the contractor to provide the FTC with comprehensive financial management and internal control support services that “encompass a broad range of financial management activities,” such as “financial analysis, audit support, risk management, and compliance with federal financial regulations and standards.” AR, Tab 4, PWS at 5. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single BPA, under which time-and-material or labor-hour call orders would be placed, with a 12-month base period of performance and four 12-month options. RFQ at 4-5, 8. The RFQ provided that a single BPA would be established pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405-3(a)(1), on a best-value tradeoff basis, with the responsible vendor whose quotation conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the agency, price and other factors considered. Id. at 8, 12. The RFQ indicated that quotations would be evaluated based on three equally weighted evaluation factors: (1) technical and management approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 10-12; COS at 3-4. The RFQ informed vendors that for the technical and management approach factor, the agency intended to use an adjectival scale of exceptional, very good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. RFQ at 10-11. For the past performance factor, the RFQ outlined two subfactors, past performance narrative and past performance questionnaire, and explained that both equally weighted subfactors, and the past performance factor overall, would be rated on an adjectival scale of either exceptional, good, acceptable, neutral or marginal. Id. at 11. The RFQ also stated that the agency would assign an overall adjectival rating to each quotation “based on their cumulative factor ratings,” as either exceptional, very good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Id. at 12-13. Price was not rated or scored, but the RFQ informed vendors that award may not be made to the lowest-priced quotation. Id. at 12. Eleven vendors, including AOC and Castro, submitted quotations by the March 12 closing date for receipt of quotations. COS at 2, 7. An agency technical evaluation panel evaluated the non-price portion of each vendor’s quotation using the adjectival ratings set forth in the RFQ and documented its findings in a consensus evaluation document. Id. at 7.