TITLE: QuickHire, LLC, B-293098, January 30, 2004
BNUMBER: B-293098
DATE: January 30, 2004
**********************************************************************
QuickHire, LLC, B-293098, January 30, 2004
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: QuickHire, LLC
File: B-293098
Date: January 30, 2004
Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., and Anand V. Ramana, Esq., Holland & Knight,
for the protester.
Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., and Edward R. Murray, Esq., Crowell &
Moring, for Allied Technology Group, Inc., an intervenor.
George C. Brown, Esq., and Angela E. Clark, Esq., Securities and Exchange
Commission, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Evaluation of protester*s technical quotation as technically unacceptable
was unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that quotation
failed to demonstrate that it met solicitation requirements.
DECISION
QuickHire, LLC protests the award of a contract to Allied Technology
Group, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SECHQ1-03-Q-0093,
issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for Internet-based
automated staffing services. QuickHire challenges the evaluation of its
technical quotation.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ sought quotations for a commercial, off-the-shelf, Internet-based
subscription service integrating position classification, staffing, and
recruitment processes into a single, automated, electronic solution for
human resources (HR) and workforce management at the SEC. The acquisition
contemplated an award under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and was
conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8. The
subscription service was required to provide an extranet delivery system,
eliminating the need for the SEC to create, staff, and maintain its own
information technology (IT) infrastructure. All operations pertaining to
the service had to be performed *server-side,* without the use of cookies,
downloads of code, or client-side software. RFQ S: C.1.0.2. The RFQ
contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option
years.
Quotations were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in
descending order of importance--technical capability corporate
experience/past performance, key personnel, and business quotation
(price). Quotations were rated using a color-coded system of blue
(exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), and red
(unacceptable). Award was to be made on a *best value* basis. The RFQ
reserved the agency*s right to make award on the basis of initial
quotations, without discussions, and advised vendors that it was critical
that quotations be fully responsive to the RFQ, without exception to any
provision.
QuickHire and Allied submitted the only quotations submitted in response
to the solicitation. In the technical evaluation, the Source Evaluation
Board (SEB) rated QuickHire*s quotation red under the technical capability
and key personnel factors and neutral under the experience factor.
Allied*s quotation was rated green under the technical capability factor
and blue under the experience and key personnel factors. Based on
QuickHire*s unacceptable technical quotation, the SEB did not evaluate its
business quotation, but used it for price comparison purposes. The SEB
recognized that QuickHire*s quotation of [deleted] was lower than
Allied*s, but found Allied*s quotation of $3.5 million to be fair and
reasonable, and recommended award to Allied. The contracting officer, as
the source selection official, adopted the SEB*s recommendation and
awarded the contract to Allied. After receiving a debriefing, QuickHire
filed this protest, asserting that the agency*s evaluation of its
technical quotation was flawed; in the protester*s view, its quotation was
fully acceptable as submitted.
In reviewing a protest of an agency*s evaluation of quotations, it is not
our role to reevaluate quotations. Rather, we will consider only whether
the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC,
B‑287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 119 at 2. The record shows that
QuickHire*s quotation was evaluated as unacceptable for a number of
reasons, as detailed in the technical evaluation memo and the
debriefing.[2] QuickHire challenges virtually all of the agency*s
reasons for rejecting its quotation. We have reviewed all of the
allegations and find that none has merit. We address the more significant
allegations below.
WEB-BASED SYSTEM
The SEB found that QuickHire*s quotation did not make clear that it had
provided a totally Internet web-based solution. Agency Report (AR), Tab
8, at 2. QuickHire challenges this conclusion.
As noted above, under the RFQ, vendors were to provide *an extranet
delivery system,* eliminating the need for the SEC to maintain its own IT
infrastructure, and all operations pertaining to the service were to be
performed *server side,* without use of cookies, downloads of code, or
client side software. RFQ S: C.1.0.2. QuickHire*s quotation stated in a
number of places that its service was web-based. However, under the
*Technical Approach,* section of its proposal, under the heading *Six
Phases of the Implementation Methodology,* there was an entry for *Initial
Software Installation (Training System).* Quotation at 9. The SEB found
that this software installation reference was confusing, and that it
implied a departure from the total web-based requirement; it concluded
that there were serious doubts regarding QuickHire*s ability to provide
the specified services. AR, Tab 7, P: 2; Supplemental Report at 9-10.
In challenging the agency*s conclusion, QuickHire notes the many
references to its web-based system throughout its quotation, and explains
that the cited software reference did not refer to client-side software
installation, but was merely a description of its [deleted]. Protest at
13. QuickHire concludes that the agency*s doubts were unreasonable.
This argument is without merit. While the referenced software forms a
portion of QuickHire*s implementation methodology with regard to its
technical solution, there is nothing in the quotation to explain its
apparent inconsistency with the RFQ*s prohibition against client-side
software. RFQ S: C.1.0.2. QuickHire*s explanation in its protest filings
notwithstanding, the quotation does not explain that the software
reference is related to the firm*s production process, and the protester
has not explained how the agency reasonably should have been aware of
this. (Moreover, it is not clear from the quotation or the protest
submissions what is meant by the term [deleted] in the context of the
contract here.) As a result, the SEB had no information that would enable
it to resolve its doubts as to the *totality* of QuickHire*s proposed
web-based service.[3] Further, the agency*s doubts were reinforced by
information it obtained in its evaluation of QuickHire*s corporate
experience; two of the references the SEB contacted stated that the
software furnished by QuickHire was not totally web-based. AR, Tab 7,
P: 2, Tab 13, P: 8. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis for
questioning the agency*s finding that the reference to software
installation in QuickHire*s quotation raised doubt as to whether the firm
would furnish the required web‑based system; it follows that the
agency reasonably concluded that the quotation was unacceptable under the
technical capability factor.
SAMPLE PLAN
Quotations were required to include a sample plan approach for the SEC*s
HR automated staffing service, and an example of a previously developed
service and its current operation. RFQ S: L.6.4.1, Subfactor A. The
agency found that QuickHire*s sample plan was incomplete and
nonresponsive--it included only a minimal amount of information with
regard to the proposed web-based service, and focused on a generic
approach, without providing specific technical data. AR, Tab 13, P: 6.
QuickHire maintains that its sample plan was not generic in nature but,
rather, was based on another customer*s implementation due to the SEC*s
failure to provide sufficiently detailed data in the RFQ. It concludes
that the agency*s evaluation in this area therefore was unreasonable.
This argument is also without merit. The agency denies that the RFQ was
lacking necessary information, asserting that its requirements were
clearly detailed in RFQ section C. [4] AR at 21. In this regard, we note
that section C.3.0 contains information on security, accessibility
requirements, service implementation, customization requirements, user
interface requirements, electronic signature requirements, service
functional requirements, data handling requirements, service reporting
requirements, service availability, and training requirements. RFQ at
4-12. Whether or not QuickHire believed additional information was
required, the agency found that the firm*s sample plan did not address the
requirements in Section C. QuickHire has not established otherwise. It
is the vendor*s burden to submit an adequately written quotation in
response to an RFQ and it runs the risk that its quotation will be
evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do so. RVJ Int*l, Inc.,
B‑292161.2, July 2, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 124 at 6. Since QuickHire
failed to submit a complete sample plan as required by the RFQ, the agency
reasonably concluded that its quotation was unacceptable.
CONCURRENT PUBLIC ACCESS
The RFQ required that the system be accessible to the public for
electronic submission, viewing, or verifying the status of application(s)
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except for periods of routine or emergency
maintenance. RFQ S: C.3.10.1.1. The RFQ also required vendors to propose
a level of concurrent public access to the service that would *present the
SEC to the public in a positive manner,* and required vendors to
*demonstrate that the service can accommodate increased demand for
concurrent services when the need arises.* RFQ S: L.6.4.1, Subfactor D.
The SEC found that QuickHire*s quotation did not provide clear and
detailed specifics related to concurrent public access for the proposed
service. AR, Tab 8, at 2. Specifically, it found that the quotation
lacked information as to how many people may access the proposed system to
fill out applications simultaneously worldwide, with minimum downtime, and
did not address the potential for volume increases. AR, Tab 13, P: 6.
QuickHire maintains that it fully met the RFQ requirements by stating that
its system was accessible to the public [deleted] and that it had
[deleted]. Quotation at 31. QuickHire*s quotation also provided that it
employed component redundancies, and that when the capacity of any
production component reached [deleted], additional components would be
deployed. Quotation at 14. In QuickHire*s view, since the RFQ did not
specify the number of users necessary to meet the access requirement, more
specific information was not required.
The evaluation in this area was unobjectionable. The agency was looking
for vendors to somehow quantify the ability of their systems to handle
increased volume, and QuickHire instead provided only more general
information explaining what would be done as volume increased. While the
RFQ did not identify specific access levels, we think the agency
reasonably could expect vendors to discuss the requirement in terms of the
actual capacity of their systems, and the steps that would be taken to
address specific quantity increases. Because QuickHire failed to do this,
the agency reasonably concluded that it had not satisfied the
requirement.[5]
CLARIFICATIONS/DISCUSSIONS
QuickHire asserts that any problems with its quotation, and any questions
the agency had, were required to be resolved through clarifications. We
disagree. In order to correct the deficiencies in the multiple areas of
its quotation that rendered it unacceptable, discussions would have been
required. Where, as here, a quotation under an FSS acquisition is
reasonably eliminated from the competition as technically unacceptable,
the vendor is not entitled to discussions. Venturi Tech. Partners,
B-292060, June 10, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 114 at 5.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] QuickHire has raised additional arguments in a supplemental protest
(B-293098.2). We will address these arguments in a separate decision.
[2] QuickHire asserts that the agency should not be permitted to cite as
support for its rejection of QuickHire*s quotation certain evaluation
conclusions that do not appear in the contemporaneous record, and were
raised for the first time during its debriefing. However, while we may
accord little or no weight to evaluation conclusions reached by an agency
after a protest has been filed, that is, in the heat of litigation, Boeing
Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2, B‑277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997,
97-2 CPD P: 91 at 15, there is nothing objectionable in an agency*s
disclosing evaluation findings for the first time during a debriefing. In
any case, even where conclusions from the original evaluation are
disclosed for the first time during the protest process, we will consider
them in our review of the evaluation, so long as the information is
credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record. NWT Inc.;
PharmChem Labs., Inc., B‑280988, B‑280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998,
98-2 CPD P: 158 at 16.
[3] We also note that, although the RFQ provided for training of SEC
personnel, it was to be instructor-led, classroom training, and end-user
training was to be online or interactive web-based, neither of which
called for software installation. RFQ S: C.3.11.
[4] To the extent that QuickHire believes greater detail in the RFQ was
necessary, this assertion concerns an alleged solicitation defect that, in
order to be timely under our Bid Protest Regulations, was required to be
protested prior to the closing time for receipt of quotations. 4 C.F.R.
S: 21.2(a)(1) (2003).
[5] QuickHire asserts that the agency was required to fully evaluate its
business quotation before rejecting its proposal. However, since a
technically unacceptable
quotation cannot be considered for award--LifeCare, Inc., B‑291672,
B‑291672.2, Feb. 20, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 95 at 4--there was no need
for the agency to evaluate QuickHire*s business quotation.