Booker DiMaio, LLC-CompuVision Consulting, LLC (47HAA024Q0020)

B-423224 Mar 17, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booker DiMaio, LLC (Booker), a small business located in Sykesville, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47HAA024Q0020, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for project management support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical quotation as ineligible for award. 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: Booker DiMaio, LLC File: B-423224 Date: March 17, 2025 Patrick Kernan, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC, for the protester. Shirin Ahlhauser, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 agency’s technical evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and performed in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, and where the protester is unable to demonstrate competitive prejudice. DECISION Booker DiMaio, LLC (Booker), a small business located in Sykesville, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47HAA024Q0020, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), to establish multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), for project management support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical quotation as ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2024, GSA issued the RFQ under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to vendors holding GSA multiple award schedule contracts for special item number 54151S.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ amend. 2 at 1, 5. The RFQ was issued as a small business set‑aside and sought to establish multiple BPAs for a 5‑year ordering period. Id. at 1, 4‑5, 18. The maximum combined total value of orders under the BPAs will be $75 million over five years. AR, Tab 3, SOW amend. 1 at 6. The RFQ contemplated that BPAs would be established with at least two responsible vendors whose quotations conform to the solicitation requirements and provide the best value to the agency. RFQ amend. 2 at 9. The solicitation identified the following three non‑price evaluation factors the agency would consider: technical understanding, management plan, and past performance. Id. at 16. The RFQ advised that all non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. The RFQ also explained that technical understanding by itself was more important than price and that price and past performance were considered equal. Id. In addition, the RFQ provided that the agency would evaluate total price reasonableness and evaluate the price quotation for consistency with an understanding of the RFQ and SOW requirements. Id. at 15. As relevant to this protest, the technical understanding factor required a vendor to document its technical understanding of the SOW requirements, the most suitable technical approach for the vendor to perform the requirements, and the vendor’s ability to perform the requirements. Id. at 11. The SOW identified ten task areas to be addressed for the technical understanding factor within a limitation of 17 pages for this factor.[2] Id. at 7, 11. The RFQ cautioned that any task area not addressed in the quotation or that the agency deemed not met would result in the assignment of a deficiency. Id. at 11. Further, the solicitation advised that any quotation failing to receive a rating of acceptable or higher for the technical understanding factor would not be evaluated further.[3] Id. The agency received quotations from 40 vendors by the June 4 submission deadline. AR, Tab 6, Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Report at 2. Thirty‑one of these quotations, including Booker’s, were “determined to be responsive to the RFQ” and evaluated by the TEB. AR, Tab 4, Award Decision Memo. at 5. The TEB assigned Booker’s quotation a rating of marginal under the technical understanding factor and did not evaluate it under the other two non-price factors.[4] AR, Tab 6, TEB Report at 13‑14. In this connection, the evaluators concluded that even though the quotation exhibited strengths in seven task areas, it also had three significant weaknesses and a deficiency which could not be offset.[5] Id. at. 13. The TEB assigned Booker’s quotation a deficiency for failing to “demonstrate knowledge of the components of the smart building program.” Id.