Koniag Management Solutions, Inc. (19AQMM24Q0007)

B-423051,B-423051.2 Jan 10, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Koniag Management Solutions, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the issuance of a task order to ASRC Federal Highland Technology (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM24Q0007, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for software development lifecycle support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Koniag's past performance, as well as the source selection decision. 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: Koniag Management Solutions, Inc. File: B-423051; B-423051.2 Date: January 10, 2025 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., Potomac Law Group, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Markus G. Speidel, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for ASRC Federal Highland Technology, the intervenor. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied, where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging disparate treatment is denied where the record reflects that quotations were not substantively indistinguishable from one another. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the protester has not established that the underlying evaluation was unreasonable. DECISION Koniag Management Solutions, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the issuance of a task order to ASRC Federal Highland Technology (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 19AQMM24Q0007, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for software development lifecycle support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of Koniag’s past performance, as well as the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Department of State issued the solicitation on January 26, 2024, under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, RFQ at 1, 49.[1] The solicitation sought quotations to provide service transition support services (STS2) for the software development lifecycle, information technology service management, and business process improvement for DOS’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Consular Systems and Technology. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; RFQ at 18-20. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials task order with one 12‑month base period and four 1-year options. RFQ at 2‑11. The RFQ provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors in descending order of importance: technical, past performance, and price.[2] Id. at 56. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 57. The agency received quotations from eight vendors, including Koniag and ASRC. AR, Tab 38, Award Determination at 2. The agency evaluated Koniag and ASRC as follows:[3]   Koniag ASRC TECHNICAL Superior Superior Technical Approach Superior Superior Corporate Experience Superior Superior Management and Staffing Plan Acceptable Acceptable Key Personnel Resumes Superior Superior PAST PERFORMANCE Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence PRICE $118,381,431 $149,971,022   Id. at 4-7, 11. After evaluating quotations, DOS concluded that ASRC provided the best value to the government, finding ASRC’s technical approach and past performance record provided a significant advantage to the government that was worth the price premium. Id. at 27‑28. The agency notified Koniag of the award decision on September 27, 2024. Koniag filed this protest with our Office on October 7. DISCUSSION Koniag argues that the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance was unreasonable and disparate and, as a result, the agency’s source selection decision was flawed. Protest at 8-10; Comments & Supp. Protest at 8‑10. We have reviewed all of Koniag’s protest grounds and find no basis to sustain the protest. Past Performance First, the protester contends that the agency should have assigned Koniag a past performance rating of “substantial confidence,” rather than “satisfactory confidence.” Protest at 8. The agency responds that it properly evaluated Koniag’s past performance.