Alliance Networks, WLL (HC102124QA088)

B-422995 Dec 31, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alliance Networks, WLL, of Manama, Bahrain, protests the award of a contract to Qualitynet General Trading and Contracting Company of Kuwait under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HC102124QA088, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency, for telecommunications services. The protester primarily challenges the agency's evaluation and rejection of its quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Alliance Networks, WLL File: B-422995 Date: December 31, 2024 Adel Daylami and Mohamed Marhoon, for the protester. Susan M. Chagrin, Esq., and Joshua D. Bell, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Alliance Networks, WLL, of Manama, Bahrain, protests the award of a contract to Qualitynet General Trading and Contracting Company of Kuwait under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HC102124QA088, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency, for telecommunications services. The protester primarily challenges the agency’s evaluation and rejection of its quotation.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on July 24, 2024, seeking a vendor to provide “a 622 MB commercial, unchannelized, unprotected ethernet circuit lease between Al Asad, Iraq, and Baghdad, Iraq” that would be used by the United States Army Central.[2] RFQ at 1. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract to be performed on a month-to-month basis for a maximum of 60 months. Id. at 45. The RFQ provided for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, considering technical acceptability, past performance, and total price. Id. at 44. Of note, the RFQ provided that the agency intended to evaluate quotations and make award without discussions, and “reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary.” Id. at 44. Of note, the RFQ included a requirement for “DITCO [Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization] additional telecommunications text‑‑52‑‑approved products list,” otherwise referred to as the “DATT [Defense Attaché] 52” requirement. Id. at 51. The RFQ required the vendor to “ist the make and model number of all equipment the TP [contractor/telecommunications provider] or any subcontractor will use at the point of interface with the Government’s network.” Id. In addition to requiring a list, the RFQ required the vendor to provide the following statement: “By submission of this quote, I (as the TP) certify that I understand the provision outlined and will comply.” Id. The RFQ warned that the vendor’s “failure to list the specific equipment” or inclusion of equipment not on the agency’s approved lists[3] “may result in the TP being deemed not technically acceptable.” Id. The RFQ further emphasized that a quotation “must comply with all DATTs . . . to be deemed technically acceptable.” Id. at 1. On or before the August 23 closing date for submission of quotations, the agency received eight quotations and, after a cursory and administrative review, proceeded to evaluate the five quotations that it found eligible to compete, including those submitted by Alliance and Qualitynet. AR, Tab 8, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 3; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. After the first two lowest-priced quotations were evaluated and rejected, the agency evaluated Alliance and found that it was the third-lowest priced at $324,000, but was technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. AR, Tab 8, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 4; AR, Tab 6, Quotation Evaluation Sheet--Alliance at 1. Specifically, the agency evaluated Alliance’s quotation as unacceptable because it did not meet the DATT 52 requirement. The evaluators noted: “Proposed equipment is not listed/documented.”[4] AR, Tab 6, Quotation Evaluation Sheet--Alliance at 1. The record reflects that Alliance’s quotation did not include a list of the make and model number of its equipment and only stated: Understand and Will Comply. BY SUBMISSION OF THIS QUOTE, I (AS THE TP) CERTIFY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PROVISION OUTLINED AND WILL COMPLY. AR, Tab 3, Alliance Proposal at 55. After the fourth quotation was evaluated and rejected, the agency evaluated Qualitynet’s quotation and found it to be technically acceptable. AR, Tab 8, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 4; AR, Tab 7, Quotation Evaluation Sheet--Qualitynet at 1. On September 19, the agency issued the award to Qualitynet for $368,765. AR, Tab 9, Award Notice on SAM.gov.