NextStep Technology, Inc.

Decision

Matter of:  NextStep Technology, Inc.

File:  B-416877

Date:  January 3, 2019

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.

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] 

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
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] 
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] 
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. 

DISCUSSION

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