Decision released in protest denial of FTC requirement for IT Services and Solutions

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of quotations and best-value determination is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and the challenge to the best-value determination is derivative of the evaluation challenges.
2. Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s organizational conflict of interest investigation is denied where the agency reasonably found the awardee’s work under a previous task order did not result in the awardee having access to nonpublic, competitively useful information.

DISCUSSION

NetCentrics challenges FTC’s evaluation of quotations under every non-price evaluation factor. Specifically, the protester contends that the agency: (1) misevaluated quotations under the technical approach factor; (2) misevaluated quotations under the management approach factor; (3) misevaluated quotations under the relevant experience/past performance factor; (4) made a flawed best-value determination; and (5) conducted an unreasonable OCI investigation. Protest at 2-3; Comments & Supp. Protest at 2-3.

The FTC argues that its non-price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The agency primarily maintains that NetCentrics’s quotation was not sufficiently detailed in various respects and thus generally merited lower ratings than Leidos’s quotation, or was otherwise assigned weaknesses that impacted its adjectival ratings under multiple evaluation factors. Id. at 4, 7. With regard to its OCI investigation, the agency argues its investigation was reasonable and properly determined that Leidos did not have a disqualifying OCI. Id. at 1.

Where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to Federal Supply Schedule vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition for the issuance of an order or establishment of a BPA, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. XL Assocs., Inc., d/b/a XLA, B-417426.3, Jan. 16, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 33 at 4. The evaluation of quotations is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency; we will not question the agency’s evaluation absent a showing that the evaluation is unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. Battelle Mem’l Inst., B‑420253 et al., Jan. 12, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 31 at 5.

We discuss NetCentrics’s challenges to the FTC’s evaluation of quotations under each evaluation factor in turn below, in addition to the protester’s remaining protest grounds. For the reasons explained herein, we deny the protest. Though this decision does not address all of NetCentrics’s collateral protest grounds, our Office has considered them all and find none afford a basis on which to sustain the protest.

Evaluation of the Technical Approach Factor

NetCentrics challenges the FTC’s evaluation and assignment of ratings under the technical approach factor in two primary respects. First, the protester challenges each weakness the agency assigned to the firm’s quotation under this factor.[4] Comments & Supp. Protest at 6-17. Second, the protester alleges that the agency engaged in disparate treatment by failing to assign the protester a significant strength for two aspects of its technical solution, while assigning Leidos significant strengths for what the protester characterizes as offering the same or lesser solutions. Id. at 3-6.

The FTC argues that NetCentrics’s protest grounds under this factor are based on “incorrect factual premises” and represent mere disagreement with the agency’s reasonable evaluation. Supp. MOL at 7. Regarding the allegation of disparate treatment, the agency maintains that the protester has failed to show that the differences in ratings assigned did not stem from differences between the vendors’ quotations, and therefore should be denied. Id. at 8….

DECISION

NetCentrics Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Leidos, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 29FTC122Q0002, issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information technology (IT) services and solutions. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated quotations, and that the agency’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigation with respect to the awardee was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

See the complete decision here.

NetCentrics Corporation protest B-421172.2; B-421172.3

🔊 Listen to Story