Reston Consulting Group, Inc. (25PR-SSPDIR-0117)

B-423493,B-423493.2,B-423493.3 Aug 01, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Reston Consulting Group, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to IgniteAction, LLC, a small business of Coral Springs, Florida, by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 25PR-SSPDIR-0117 under the Infrastructure Operations Support Services (IOSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in the conduct of its evaluation of quotations and best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Reston Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-423493; B-423493.2; B-423493.3 Date: August 1, 2025 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Zachary P. Prince, Esq., and John M. Tanner, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for the protester. Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Samarth Barot, Esq., and Shane M. Hannon, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for IgniteAction, LLC, the intervenor. Jonathan D. Tepper, Esq., John Curtis Hauschildt, Esq., Tram-Anh Q. Tran, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations and best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation and decision were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION Reston Consulting Group, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to IgniteAction, LLC, a small business of Coral Springs, Florida, by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 25PR-SSPDIR-0117 under the Infrastructure Operations Support Services (IOSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in the conduct of its evaluation of quotations and best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 18, 2025, the agency issued the RFQ pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to all holders of the IOSS BPA seeking to issue a single task order on a fixed price basis for IT support services. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The RFQ contemplated making award based on a best-value tradeoff between three factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) management approach; (2) transition plan; and (3) price. Agency Report (AR), Tab F.3, RFQ at 90. Of note, the RFQ explained that, notwithstanding that the technical factors were more important than price, the agency reserved the right to make award to a lower technically rated, lower-priced vendor rather than to a higher technically rated, higher-priced vendor, and that “the closer the technical ratings of the various quotes are to one another, the more important price consideration becomes in determining the best value.” Id. at 93. Relevant to this protest, the RFQ required vendors to propose both key personnel and a staffing plan to meet the requirements for five specific task areas.[1] Id. at 2-3. Additionally, the RFQ provided an estimated level of effort (LOE) for staffing and explained that the estimated LOE would be used to evaluate quotations, but that vendors could propose a different LOE. Id. at 4. Moreover, while vendors were permitted to deviate from the provided LOE, the agency cautioned in answers to vendor questions that each of the five task areas should have, at minimum, one senior position or key person as project lead, and that vendors must propose a labor category mix that best meets the complexity and skill levels required to meet the requirements. AR, Tab F.2, Vendor Questions and Answers, Question 37. Additionally, the RFQ required staffing plans to reflect an adequate resource headcount and ability to promote successful and timely contract performance. RFQ at 91. With respect to transition plans, the RFQ instructed vendors to address their approach to ensuring a smooth transition, and describe how they would staff, train, measure and manage the effort at the time of award to maintain, or increase, the existing level of productivity that currently exists. RFQ at 91. Vendors were also required to provide a timeline after award to pick up and continue the effort to include personnel and necessary credentials required to continue without disruption of service. Id. Concerning price, the RFQ explained that the agency would evaluate proposed prices to determine if they were fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and were consistent with the vendor’s quote. Id. at 93.