NextStep Technology, Inc.

NextStep Technology, Inc. (NextStep), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Federal Integrated Systems Corporation (Federal), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 693JJ418Q000011, issued by the United States Department of Transportation for professional and administrative support services for various divisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its quotation under the past performance factor and the resulting best-value tradeoff decision were improper.

We deny the protest.

We deny the protest.

Matter of: NextStep Technology, Inc.

File: B-416877

Date: January 3, 2019

Vincent Viriya for the

protester.

Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for Federal Integrated Systems

Corporation, the intervenor.

Jean D. Wulff, Esq., and Chioma M. Ayogu, Esq., Department of Transportation, for

the agency.

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations

and the resulting best-value decision is denied where the record shows that the

agency’s evaluation and award decisions were reasonable and consistent with the

solicitation.

DECISION

NextStep Technology, Inc. (NextStep), of Lorton, Virginia,

protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Federal

Integrated Systems Corporation (Federal), of Alexandria, Virginia, under

request for quotations (RFQ) No. 693JJ418Q000011, issued by the United States

Department of Transportation for professional and administrative support services

for various divisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA). The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation

under the past performance factor and the resulting best-value tradeoff

decision were improper.¹

[1]NextStep was not

represented by counsel and therefore could not review proprietary and source

selection sensitive information under a protective order. Accordingly, the agency

produced redacted agency reports for the protester and the intervenor. This

decision is based on our review of the unredacted record.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFQ on July 26, 2018, to contract holders

of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) schedule

No. 00CORP for professional services. The RFQ was issued utilizing Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 procedures for the establishment of a

single BPA for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods to procure

professional and administrative support services for a variety of job functions

for FMCSA. RFQ at 1. The solicitation included a statement of work (SOW) identifying

15 labor categories, along with a detailed description of the duties and

minimum qualifications for each labor category.² Id. at 11-30. The

[2]The solicitation

identified the following labor categories: program manager, grants post-award

specialist, internal controls auditor II, business analyst, complementary

financial analyst, chief financial officer administrative specialist I,

administrative assistant II, registration and safety information program

assistant (I, II, and III), human resource specialist (information systems),

personnel security assistant, human resource administrative assistant II, human

resource assistant, and human resource assistant benefits. RFQ at 11-30.

successful vendor would be required to provide the needed staffing and

supervision to meet the daily duties and responsibilities for the various

divisions of the FMCSA. Id. at 8.

The RFQ contemplated establishment of the BPA on the basis

of a best-value tradeoff, considering price and the following factors, listed

in descending order of importance: technical approach, management approach, and

past performance. Id. at 1-2. The technical approach evaluation factor

was stated to be more important than all other evaluation factors combined. Id.

at 2. In this regard, vendors were advised that the government was “more

concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with

making an award at the lowest overall price.” Id. at 1.

As relevant here, in response to vendor questions

concerning past performance submissions, the agency indicated that vendors were

to provide a “[b]rief description of the project/services provided (clearly

show size and scope) to demonstrate relevance to the requirements outlined in

the Statement of Work.” Agency Report (AR) exh. 3, RFQ mod. 2, Question &

Answer (Q&A) No. 20. The solicitation established that past performance would

be assigned a performance risk assessment rating based on an evaluation of the

vendor’s recent and relevant past performance history in providing the services

in the SOW. RFQ at 3. As also relevant, the solicitation established a limit

of 30 pages for quotations, with resumes and pricing not included in the page

count. Id. at 1. In response to a request for clarification of the

page limit for individual resumes and past performance submissions, the agency explained

that “[c]over pages, resumes, and past performance are not included in the page

count.” AR exh 3, RFQ mod. 2, Q&A No. 17.

The agency received a number of quotations in response to

the solicitation, including quotations from Federal and NextStep. The agency’s

technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated quotations, assigned consensus

ratings, and prepared narrative assessments of advantages, deficiencies, and disadvantages

for each quotation under each of the non-price evaluation factors.³

[3]The available ratings under

the technical approach and management approach evaluation factors were exceptional,

good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. RFQ at 3-4.

AR exh. 6, Technical Evaluation Report at 2-3. The contracting officer then

assigned past performance risk ratings for each vendor based on the relevancy

ratings assigned by the TEP and whether the vendor’s demonstrated past

performance related to the entire scope of the SOW.⁴

[4]The available ratings

under past performance were low risk, moderate risk, high risk, and unknown

risk. RFQ at 5-6. Of relevance here, vendors without a record of relevant

past performance, or for whom information on past performance was not available,

would not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and would

receive an unknown risk rating for the past performance factor. Id. at

5.

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3; AR exh. 7, Revised Award Memorandum at 4.

The proposed prices of each vendor were evaluated and each was determined to be

fair and reasonable. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3.

The overall evaluation results for Federal and NextStep

were as follows:

AR exh. 7, Revised Award Memorandum at 12. The agency

assigned NextStep’s quotation an unknown risk/neutral past performance rating because

the protester did not submit past performance references that covered all areas

of the SOW. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3.

The contracting officer, who was the selection official

for this procurement, conducted tradeoff analyses between the various vendors, giving

appropriate consideration to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ and

their relative importance. Id. As between Federal and NextStep, the

contracting officer found that the difference between the two quotations with

respect to the non-price factors was the quality of Federal’s quotation which

received the highest rating under the technical approach factor--the most

important factor--as well the highest rating under the management approach

factor. Recognizing the importance of selecting a vendor with a superior

technical and management approach, the contracting officer concluded that

Federal’s higher-rated quotation represented the best value to the government

as compared to NextStep’s lower-priced, lower-rated quotation. Id.

On September 26, 2018, the agency established a BPA with

Federal with a ceiling of $18,575,841.60 and notified unsuccessful vendors of

the selection decision. After NextStep received a brief explanation of the decision,

this protest followed.

NextStep challenges the agency’s evaluation of its past

performance and the agency’s best-value decision. With respect to the past

performance evaluation, the protester argues that the agency improperly

assigned an unknown risk/neutral rating because the protester did not submit past

performance references for all the SOW requirements. Protest at 2-3; Comments

at 1-2. Specifically, NextStep claims that it followed the solicitation’s

instructions that quotations “shall not exceed 30 pages” see RFQ at 1, and

argues that “it would have been impractical and unrealistic to illustrate

recent and relevant contracts/work in each of the fifteen (15) different labor

categories” within the 30-page limit. Comments at 1-2.

Where an agency conducts a formal competition for the

establishment of a BPA, we will review the agency’s actions to ensure that the

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Alexander

& Tom, Inc., B-412358 et al., Jan. 21, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 46 at 4.

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection

decisions, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine

the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluative judgments were

reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable

procurement laws and regulations. SRM Grp., Inc., B-410571, B-410571.2,

Jan. 5, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 25 at 4; Digital Sols., Inc., B-402067, Jan.

12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 3-4; DEI Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009,

2009 CPD ¶ 151 at 2. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment,

without more, does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. Cyberdata

Techs., Inc., B-411070 et al., May 1, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 150 at 4.

Here, the RFQ provided that the purpose of the BPA was to

obtain contractor staffing for each of the labor categories listed in the SOW.

As noted above, the solicitation required vendors to demonstrate relevant past

performance for the specific staffing requirements set forth in the SOW, and advised

that there was no page count limitation to bar vendors from providing this

information. See AR exh. 3, RFQ mod. 2, Q&A Nos. 17, 20. In this

regard, the record reflects that the protester’s past performance submission included

six past performance references. Id. exh. 12, NextStep Quotation at

27-31. The agency evaluated three of these references as not relevant to any

of the SOW’s staffing requirements. For example, one of the references

evaluated as not relevant was a Department of Transportation (DOT) contract for

development of a mobile application. NextStep’s description of the work was

limited to “the results are truly visible as a mobile app and a DOT

reference.” Id. at 27. The agency expressly noted that this

description failed to demonstrate how the reference was relevant to any of the

labor categories set forth in the SOW. AR exh. 6, TEP Report at 19.

With regard to the four references the agency evaluated as

having some relevance to the SOW, the agency found that they were limited to

areas involving some of the labor categories contemplated by the SOW--specifically,

those relating to the administrative support, business analyst, auditing, or financial

services labor categories. Id. at 19-20. Because the protester’s

references did not, however, establish relevance with respect to several of the

labor categories contemplated by the SOW--for example, the agency did not find that

the references involved labor categories pertaining to program management,

post-award grants, human resources, or personnel security, among others--the agency

assigned NextStep’s quotation an unknown/neutral rating under the past

performance factor. While the protester disagrees with the agency’s assessment

of its past performance, the protester does not dispute that its past

performance references failed to demonstrate relevance with respect to many of

the labor category requirements set forth under the SOW. Rather, in response, the

protester simply contends that it would have been “impractical and unrealistic”

to include recent and relevant contracts with respect to all of the labor categories

listed in the SOW. Protester’s Comments at 1. A vendor, however, has the

burden of submitting an adequately written quotation and runs the risk that its

quotation will be evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do so. VariQ

Corp., B-407193, Nov. 27, 2012, 2013 CPD ¶ 233 at 3. Accordingly, based on

this record, we find no basis to conclude that the agency’s evaluation either was

unreasonable or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

NextStep also challenges the agency’s best-value decision,

essentially arguing that its lower-priced, lower-rated quotation offered the

best value to the government. Where, as here, a procurement is conducted on a best-value

tradeoff basis, the selection official retains discretion to select a

higher-priced but also technically higher-rated submission, if doing so is in

the government’s best interest and is consistent with the solicitation’s stated

evaluation and source selection scheme. Buckley & Kaldenbach, Inc.,

B-298572, Oct. 4, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 138 at 3; General Dynamics-Ordnance &

Tactical Sys., B-401658, B-401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 217 at 8. A

protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgments about the relative merit

of competing proposals does not establish that the evaluation was

unreasonable. General Dynamics Land Sys., B-412525, B-412525.2,

Mar. 15, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 89 at 11; Hi-Way Paving, Inc.,

B-410662, Jan. 21, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 50 at 12.

As explained above, technical approach was identified as the

most important evaluation factor and the solicitation expressly stated that the

agency sought superior technical and management features rather than making

award at the lowest overall price. Consistent with this evaluation and

selection scheme, the contracting officer determined that Federal’s significant

technical benefits together with its highly rated management approach and low

risk justified the agency’s decision to select Federal’s higher-priced

quotation. Based on our review of the record, we find this selection decision

to be reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and source

selection scheme.

The protest is denied.

Thomas H. Armstrong

General Counsel