“DIGEST
- Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
- Protest that the agency engaged in misleading discussions with the protester by failing to advise during discussions that the protester’s quoted price was unreasonably high is denied where the agency did not find the protester’s price unreasonable, and was not otherwise obligated to raise this matter during discussions.
- Protest that the awardee’s quotation improperly took exception to the solicitation requirement to quote a fixed price is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee’s assumptions were not exceptions, and where the language in question reflects the reservation of a right to request, rather than receive, a price adjustment.
- Agency’s selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced quotation for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable and adequately documented.”
“BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2018, the NIH issued the RFQ as a combined synopsis/solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses. The solicitation sought an electronic system to manage intellectual property matters for HHS, including the patenting and licensing of government inventions and discoveries. RFQ, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The agency conducted the procurement in accordance with the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and simplified acquisition procedures of FAR part 13. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price purchase order, for a base year and four 12‑month options. RFQ at 2.
The RFQ provided that the purchase order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation was evaluated as providing the best value, based on a tradeoff between price and the following non-price factors, in descending order of importance: technical, corporate experience, and past performance. RFQ, Eval. Criteria, at 1-3. The technical factor also consisted of two sub-factors: functional requirements and customize software. Id. at 2.
The solicitation provided that the agency would make a best-value determination “based on the capability of each [vendor’s quotation] to meet the specifications listed in the SOW/requirements,” and that the government’s objective is to “obtain the highest technical quality considered necessary to achieve the project objectives, with a realistic and reasonable cost.” Id. The technical and past performance factors were more important than price, but the solicitation advised that price could become more important in the tradeoff analysis as the difference between the non-price factors became closer. Id. The RFQ provided that the price evaluation would include price completeness and accuracy, price reasonableness, and total price to the government. Id. at 3.
NIH received timely quotations from thirteen vendors, including Wellspring and Inteum, by the closing date of August 14, 2018. Contracting Officer Statement (COS), Oct. 16, 2019, at 2. Following an initial evaluation of quotations, the contracting officer established a competitive range of two vendors, Wellspring and Inteum.[1] The agency invited the two vendors to provide system demonstrations to the agency. Id. at 3. Thereafter, the agency provided both Wellspring and Inteum with discussions questions. Id.; AR, Tab 10.2, Wellspring Discussions, at 1-4; Tab 11.2, Inteum Discussions, at 1-4. As relevant here, the agency advised Wellspring that its proposed price was too high. The agency requested revised price quotations from both vendors. COS at 3…”
“DISCUSSION
Wellspring challenges NIH’s evaluation of Wellspring’s and Inteum’s technical and price quotations, and the selection of Inteum’s lower-rated, lower-priced quotation. Wellspring alleges that NIH unreasonably assigned five weaknesses to its quotation under the functional requirements subfactor.[3] As for the awardee, the protester asserts that its quotation failed to meet the minimum technical requirements for browser capability as specified by the RFQ, and should have been found technically unacceptable. The protester also argues that aspects of the technical evaluation (such as the product demonstration) were undocumented and inconsistent with the underlying record, and that the agency engaged in misleading discussions with Wellspring. Finally, the protester contends that Inteum’s price quotation took exception to the solicitation’s requirement to quote a fixed price. For the reasons discussed below, we find the protester’s arguments to be without merit.[4]
As noted above, NIH conducted this procurement using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items. Simplified acquisition procedures are designed, among other things, to reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. FAR § 13.002. When using these procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. McLaurin Gen. Maint., Inc., B-411443.2, B-411443.3, Jan. 14, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 41 at 3; ERIE Strayer Co., B‑406131, Feb. 21, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 101 at 4. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. Computers Universal, Inc., B-297552, Feb. 14, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 42 at 4-5….”
“DECISION
Wellspring Worldwide, Inc., a small business of Chicago, Illinois, protests the issuance of a purchase order by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), to Inteum Company, LLC, of Kirkland, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. NIAID-RFQ18-20180622, for an enterprise system solution to support the management of NIH-owned intellectual property. Wellspring challenges NIH’s evaluation of the vendors’ technical and price quotations, argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and contends that the best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable.
We deny the protest.”
