Koniag Management Solutions, Inc. (RFQ-832468507)

B-422819 Nov 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Koniag Technology Solutions, Inc., a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the issuance of a task order to Hunter Strategy, LLC, a small business of Pompano Beach, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 832468507, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency for the delivery of a modern enterprise cloud services solution. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: Koniag Technology Solutions, Inc. File: B-422819 Date: November 5, 2024 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., John M. McAdams, Esq., and Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Hunter Strategy, LLC, the intervenor. Joseph A. Buitron, Esq., and Michelle L. Sabin, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s decision not to conduct a price realism analysis is dismissed where the solicitation did not require a price realism analysis. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of the task order recipient’s quotation is dismissed where protester fails to establish a sufficient factual basis for its challenge. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 4. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that the tradeoff was unreasonable. DECISION Koniag Technology Solutions, Inc., a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the issuance of a task order to Hunter Strategy, LLC, a small business of Pompano Beach, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 832468507, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency for the delivery of a modern enterprise cloud services solution. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and conducted a flawed best‑value tradeoff. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 3, 2024, to contract holders of the General Services Administration multiple award schedule in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8.[1] Contracting Officer Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a base period of 12 months and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ amend. 0002 at 1. The due date for quotations, as amended, was May 10, 2024. Id. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of quotations based on the following evaluation factors: technical/management approach and price.[2] Id. at 3‑4. The technical/management approach factor consisted of two subfactors: technical approach and management approach. Id. The technical approach subfactor consisted of six additional subfactor elements that referenced different subtasks of the statement of work (SOW). Id. Under subfactor 1‑1, which referenced SOW subtask 6.3.1.6, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to leverage automation and scripting tools to streamline infrastructure management tasks. Id. at 3. Under subfactor 1‑2, which referenced SOW subtask 6.3.2.2, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to develop software applications specifically designed to run in cloud environments. Id. Under subfactor 1‑3, which referenced SOW subtask 6.4.2.4, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to create needed documentation, including an implementation guide updated as a living document, to support all authorization processes. Id. Under subfactor 1‑4, which referenced SOW subtask 6.6.1.5, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to provide compelling and clear responses to media inquiries, media interviews, and articles for public media. Id. at 4. Under subfactor 1‑5, which referenced SOW subtask 6.8.1.1, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to assist in the review and analysis of vendor provided deliverables. Id. Under subfactor 1‑6, which referenced SOW subtask 6.8.6.1, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to provide joint program group support, including, among other things, coordinating with the intelligence community. Id. Under the management approach subfactor, the agency would evaluate the vendor’s recruiting, interviewing, and hiring processes. Id.