BrightPoint, LLC (12314425Q0031)

B-423392,B-423392.2,B-423392.3 Jun 25, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BrightPoint, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to MetaPhase Consulting, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314425Q0031, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for information technology (IT) services for the agency's integrated acquisition system (IAS) program. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation under the prior experience factor was unreasonable and unequal, and that the agency's resultant best-value tradeoff analysis was similarly unreasonable. We sustain the protest in part, deny it in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: BrightPoint, LLC File: B-423392; B-423392.2; B-423392.3 Date: June 25, 2025 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for MetaPhase Consulting, LLC, the intervenor. Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging various errors in agency’s evaluation of awardee’s quotation under solicitation’s non-price factors are dismissed where the protester’s claims are speculative and fail to state a valid basis of protest. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s prior experience is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest challenge to the source selection evaluation board findings and subsequent best-value tradeoff analysis is sustained where the protester raises various colorable allegations that the agency’s selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and did not give equal consideration to the protester’s and awardee’s quotations, and the agency did not meaningfully respond to the allegations. DECISION BrightPoint, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to MetaPhase Consulting, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12314425Q0031, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for information technology (IT) services for the agency’s integrated acquisition system (IAS) program. The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the prior experience factor was unreasonable and unequal, and that the agency’s resultant best‑value tradeoff analysis was similarly unreasonable. We sustain the protest in part, deny it in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On December 31, 2024, USDA issued the solicitation to 8(a)[1] firms with indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under the General Services Administration’s Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resource for Services (STARS) III governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) vehicle.[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 10, RFQ, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2.[3] The solicitation sought quotations for various services associated with the agency’s IAS program, including system development and enhancement services and IT program management services. COS at 1; PWS at 30. The RFQ contemplated issuance of a single fixed-price order with an 8-month base period of performance with up to four 1-year options, and an additional 4-month option. RFQ at 6; PWS at 30. The RFQ advised that USDA would utilize best‑value tradeoff procedures in making its source selection decision, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) prior experience; (2) management plan/key personnel; (3) oral presentation of technical approach; and (4) price. RFQ at 16. For each non-price factor, USDA was to assess a confidence rating to vendors’ quotations based on the vendors’ demonstrated understanding of requirements, any potential risk to the government, and whether the submission demonstrated that the vendor could perform the contract without government intervention. Id. at 24. A quotation could be assessed a rating of low confidence (high risk), some confidence (moderate risk), or high confidence (low risk). Id. With respect to the source selection decision, the solicitation explained that the contracting officer would assess the confidence ratings for vendors’ non-price factors, and in conjunction with its consideration of proposed price, “may choose to trade one off for the other to determine the best value for the government.” Id. at 16. USDA conducted the procurement in two phases.