Decision released in USDA Forest Service organizational management and support services requirement protest denial

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation; further, even assuming any errors, the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice in light of the solicitation’s highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price evaluation method.

DISCUSSION

The protester challenges the evaluation of its quotation under each of the non-price factors, arguing that the agency unreasonably assigned weaknesses and failed to assign strengths.  The protester further contends that the agency unreasonably assigned a high confidence rating to Agility’s quotation under the past performance factor.  The protester additionally argues that the agency’s source selection decision was improperly based on a flawed evaluation, and that the agency failed to reasonably explain the basis for accepting the conclusions of the dissenting evaluator and rejecting those of the two-member majority.  We have examined all of the protester’s arguments, and conclude that there is no basis to sustain the protest.

Evaluation of Agility’s Quotation

The record reflects that the contracting officer assigned an overall rating of high confidence to Agility’s quotation, concluding that Agility’s quotation was the most highly technically rated.4  See AR, Tab 27, Award Decision Document at 24.  As the contracting officer further found that Agility’s quoted price was fair and reasonable, Agility was selected for receipt of the task order pursuant to the RFQ’s highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price evaluation method.  Id.  The sole challenge raised by the protester to the agency’s evaluation of Agility’s quotation relates to the evaluation of Agility’s past performance.  See Comments & Supp. Protest at 23-24; Supp. Comments at 5-7.  Specifically, the protester points to the lack of a consensus as to the appropriate confidence rating to be assigned to Agility’s quotation under the past performance factor.  See AR, Tab 27, Award Decision Document at 4.  While the majority of the evaluators assigned a rating of some confidence, the dissenting evaluator assigned a rating of high confidence.  See id.  In the award decision document, the contracting officer listed “[h]ighlights from the [t]echnical [e]valuation [m]emorandum” to support the selection decision.  Id. at 4-18.  With respect to the evaluation of Agility’s past performance, the contracting officer noted that the majority had identified several strengths and no weaknesses, with one uncertainty regarding the demonstration of “HR IT [s]ystems benefits based on experience, expertise or knowledge of the projects/systems identified in the [RFQ’s]

DECISION

IT Concepts, Inc., a small business of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Agility Technologies, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 12760423Q0231, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for organizational management and support services.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations and made a flawed source selection decision.  We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story