Windsor Solutions

Decision

Matter of:  Windsor Solutions

File:  B-415840

Date:  March 23, 2018

DIGEST

1.  Protest challenging the technical acceptability of the awardee's quotation for allegedly failing to satisfy a material solicitation requirement is denied where the agency's answers to vendors' questions on the solicitation unequivocally clarified that the stated objective was not a mandatory requirement.

2.  Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of multiple deficiencies in the protester's quotation is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable, documented, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

Windsor Solutions, Inc., a small business, of Portland, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task order under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to Plateau Software, Inc., a small business, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1170151, which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for smart mobile tools for field inspectors.  Windsor primarily challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of technical quotations.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The EPA issued the RFQ, a small business set-aside, on February 13, 2017, to holders of General Services Administration Information Technology Schedule 70 contracts for commercial off the shelf (COTS) smart mobile tools for field inspectors and related support services.  RFQ at 1.[1]  The RFQ's accompanying statement of objectives (SOO) set forth a number of technical and security-related requirements for the tools and the associated services.  RFQ, attach. No. 1, SOO.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a time-and-materials task order, with a one-year base period and 2 one-year option periods.  RFQ at 2.

The RFQ established a price-technical tradeoff selection process, with the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, being significantly more important than price.  RFQ at 15.  The EPA was to evaluate quotations using the following non-price criteria, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical capability (which included the following equally weighted subfactors: (1a) understanding and approach; and (1b) functionality demonstration); (2) management approach; and (3) past performance.  Id. at 15-16.  Relevant to the issues in this protest, the RFQ indicated that the agency would evaluate the understanding and approach technical capability subfactor for the vendors':

[D]emonstrated understanding and technical approach to perform the requirements of the SOO contained in Attachment 1 to this RFQ; the demonstrated understanding and identification of potential challenges associated with performing the work with a well-defined and appropriate strategy for mitigating or overcoming those challenges; the extent to which the approach utilizes agile development methodologies; and the soundness of the technical approach to provide the solution within the specified timeframes.

RFQ at 16.

Additionally, under the functionality demonstration subfactor, the agency was to evaluate how the proposed solution addressed or comported with the function requirements provided to each vendor via the RFQ.  Id.  The equally weighted subfactors would be evaluated to result in a single overall technical capability rating.  Id. at 15.  In addition to the specific elements above, the agency also was to evaluate quotations for completeness and clarity, degree of compliance with the RFQ, and the risk of the proposed approach.  Id.

The EPA received 11 timely quotations, including quotations from Windsor and Plateau.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation Report, at 3.[2]  With respect to Windsor's quotation, the agency evaluated 14 distinct deficiencies under the understanding and technical capability subfactor, and an additional 3 distinct deficiencies under the functionality demonstration subfactor.  Id. at 48-55.  Based on the multitude of evaluated deficiencies, the evaluators rated Windsor's overall technical capability as "marginal."  Id. at 48.[3]

The Source Selection Official (SSO) adopted the evaluators' findings regarding the deficiencies in Windsor's quotation and the overall "marginal" adjectival rating.  AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 37-42, 51,140-42.  Based on the deficiencies, the SSO concluded that the protester was ineligible for award.  Id. at 142.  The SSO ultimately found Plateau's overall technically acceptable quotation at a fair and reasonable price of $2,279,594 to be the most advantageous to the government, and selected Plateau's quotation as the best value to the government.  Id. at 149.  Following a brief explanation pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4, this protest followed.

DECISION

Windsor challenges the reasonableness of the EPA's evaluation of quotations.  The protester first alleges that the agency should have determined that Plateau's quotation was technically unacceptable because Plateau's software fails to satisfy a material solicitation requirement.  Windsor also challenges the agency's assessment of multiple deficiencies in the protester's technical quotation and the resulting "marginal" rating assigned to the quotation under the technical capability factor.  For the reasons that follow, we find no basis to sustain the protest.[4]

Where, as here, an agency issues a solicitation to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  SRM Grp., Inc., B-410571, B-410571.2, Jan. 5, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 25 at 4; Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 3-4.  A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment, without more, does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.  Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions U.S.A., Inc., B-411888, Nov. 10, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 352 at 3.  In a competitive FSS procurement, it is the vendor's burden to submit a quotation or proposal that is adequately written and establishes the merits of the quotation or proposal.  SRA Int'l, Inc.; NTT DATA Servs. Fed. Gov., Inc., B-413220.4 et al., May 19, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 173 at 10.

Evaluation of Plateau's Quotation

Windsor first challenges the technical acceptability of Plateau's quotation for allegedly failing to satisfy a material solicitation requirement.  Specifically, the protester argues that the awardee's proposed solution does not meet the SOO's direction that:  "[t]he main objective of this project is to obtain a [COTS] mobile filed inspection software solution currently supporting an existing state, local, or federal environmental organization."  RFQ, attach. No. 1, SOO, at 3 (emphasis added).  The EPA and Plateau argue that the RFQ clearly represented that the above objective was not a mandatory requirement.

Where a protester and agency disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a matter that gives effect to all of its provisions; to be reasonable, and therefore valid, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner.  Alluviam LLC, B-297280, Dec. 15, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 223 at 2.  A solicitation is not ambiguous unless it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.  Shertech Pharmacy Piedmont, LLC, B-413945, Nov. 7, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 325 at 3.  Here, the only reasonable interpretation of the solicitation is the one advocated by the agency and intervenor--that is, the SOO's reference to a currently deployed solution was not a mandatory requirement.

Specifically, the agency addressed the question of whether the objective for a deployed solution was a mandatory requirement in the agency's responses to vendors' questions.  In its response, the agency expressly advised that it was not a requirement.  The relevant exchange was as follows:

Q:  RFP states - mobile field inspection software solution currently supporting an existing state, local, or federal environmental organization.  Our solution does not have any state, local, or federal governmental installation.  Is this a mandatory requirement?

A:  A mobile field inspection software solution currently supporting an existing state, local, or federal environmental organization is not a requirement.

RFQ, amend. No. 2, Questions & Answers, at 1 (emphasis added).

In light of this clarification there is no basis for the protester's interpretation of the solicitation as requiring vendors to provide a currently fielded solution, and therefore we find no basis to sustain the protest on this basis.[5]

Evaluation of Windsor's Quotation

Windsor challenges the many deficiencies assessed against its technical quotation.  The protester primarily contends that the agency failed to reasonably consider the entirety of the technical quotation, or otherwise evaluated the quotation in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.  As the following representative examples demonstrate, the agency's evaluation of Windsor's quotation was reasonable, adequately documented, and in accordance with the RFQ's terms, and therefore we deny the protest.[6]

As one example, Windsor challenges the agency's assessment of a deficiency for failing to address potential project challenges and risk mitigation strategies.  AR, Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation Report, at 52.  Windsor argues that its quotation adequately addressed the requirement, and alleges that the agency unreasonably relied on an unstated evaluation criterion for the submission of a risk mitigation plan prior to award.  We find no merit to the protester's objections.

The solicitation specifically required vendors to "identify challenges associated with performing the work and provide risk mitigation strategies for the highest likelihood of success in overcoming those challenges."  RFQ at 5.  The RFQ provided that vendors' responses to this requirement would be evaluated for "the demonstrated understanding and identification of potential challenges associated with performing the work with a well-defined and appropriate strategy for mitigating or overcoming those challenges."  Id. at 16.  In support of its contention that it adequately addressed this requirement, Windsor points to a single passage in its technical quotation.  That section, after a few brief introductory paragraphs acknowledging that "there will be a number of challenges to be met along the way" and the need for an experienced vendor to perform the work, states in its entirety that:  "[d]ue to page limitations, a full description of project risks cannot be presented in this proposal.  However, a risk mitigation plan will be developed and maintained to address these challenges and risks."  AR, Tab 5, Windsor Quotation, at 10.[7]  Based on this single passage relied upon by Windsor, it is apparent that the quotation did not "identify challenges associated with performing the work" or provide any relevant risk mitigation strategies.  RFQ at 5.  Thus, we find no basis to question the agency's assessment of a deficiency.

Similarly, Windsor challenges the agency's assessment of a deficiency based on the technical quotation's failure to adequately address the SOO's data security and encryption requirements.  The protester effectively concedes that its quotation did not address this specific security-related matter in the technical capability section, but argues that it did adequately address the requirement in the management section, and that the EPA unreasonably failed to consider that discussion.  Here again, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation.

The RFQ directed vendors under Section 1 - Technical Capability, Subsection 1a - Understanding and Approach to "demonstrate their understanding of EPA's requirements for Smart Mobile Tools for Field Inspectors described in the [SOO]," and "describe their technical approach to fulfill those requirements within the timeframe specified in the SOO."  RFQ at 5.  The SOO at issue provided, in relevant part, as follows:

The software shall meet high standards of protection for data sensitivity and support appropriate chain-of-custody requirements. . . . [T]he Contractor will be responsible for the encryption at rest on server and during transmit of data, as defined in Appendix I, "Additional Technical Requirements", Security Controls.

RFQ, attach. No. 1, SOO, at 5 (emphasis added).

As noted above, Windsor effectively concedes that it did not address this requirement in the technical capability section of its quotation; rather, it contends that the agency erred in not reviewing relevant information contained in the management section of its quotation.  Even assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the agency was required to consider the security-related information in the management section of Windsor's quotation, the information in the management section does not reasonably address the specific requirement at issue.  Specifically, the section relied on by Windsor, titled "Operations and Maintenance Support:  Production - Normal System Maintenance," addresses software deployment and continuous security risk assessments.  AR, Tab 5, Windsor Quotation, at 17-18.  Neither Windsor's technical capability section of its quotation nor the management section upon which it relies, however, addresses the specific data security and encryption requirements at issue.  In this regard, the references to continuous risk monitoring do not demonstrate how the protester will comply with the RFQ's specific data encryption requirements.  Thus, we find no basis to question the agency's assessment of a deficiency.

The protest is denied.

Thomas H. Armstrong
General Counsel

---