“DIGEST – 1. Protest that solicitation for commercial services lacks information needed to prepare quotations is denied where the solicitation provided sufficiently detailed information to allow vendors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis with respect to the solicitation requirement for services to support the proposed software solution. 2. Protest that agency failed to provide adequate time to prepare quotations is denied because, even though amendments were issued in the days before quotations were due, those amendments provided answers to vendors’ questions that did not materially change the solicitation requirements, and thus, agency’s decision not to extend the due date for quotations did not adversely affect the competition. 3. Protest that solicitation terms unduly restrict competition and result in a de facto brand name sole-source procurement is denied where the record shows that the terms of the solicitation are reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs and the agency reasonably established its acquisition approach based on market research.”
“BACKGROUND – On April 2, 2021, the agency issued the RFQ, using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to the holders of the multiple-award schedule contract under Schedule 70 (Information Technology (IT)) for special item numbers (SIN) 54151S (IT Professional Services) and 518210C (Cloud and Cloud-Related IT Professional Services).1 RFQ at 52.2 The RFQ contemplates the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period and three 1-year options. Id. at 7, 17, 54. The solicitation seeks to acquire an integrated SaaS3 solution to be implemented on a common operating platform to support the VA’s operational decision-making capability. Id. at 12. The solicitation describes the requirement as a COTS product with related services to include “software licenses, cloud hosting, and implementation support (including installation, integration, configuration, testing, and deployment) necessary to replicate the data environment….”
“DISCUSSION – Trigent argues that the solicitation’s requirement for professional services is ambiguous and insufficiently defined. Protest at 28-29. The protester also contends that the agency did not provide sufficient time for vendors to submit quotations despite materially amending the solicitation just a few days before the submission due date. Id. at 18-20. In addition, the protester asserts that the terms of the RFQ unduly restrict competition by providing only 24 hours for vendors to prepare for the technical demonstration portion of the evaluation and requiring vendors to install and configure the solution within 14 days of award. Id. at 20-23. Moreover, underpinning all of the protester’s challenges is the allegation that these solicitation terms result in a de facto brand name sole-source acquisition, where only the incumbent contractor would be able to provide a COTS product satisfying all of the requirements within the prescribed time limits. Id. at 25-26, 29-31. For the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest…”
“Requirement for Professional Services The protester contends that the solicitation requires professional services without providing adequate information for vendors to compete intelligently and equally. Protest at 28-29. Specifically, the protester argues that the pricing schedule lists “professional services” as included with the pricing for the SaaS solution without providing any additional detail as to the volume and type of services required.7 Id. In response, the agency maintains that the solicitation contains sufficient detail for vendors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. In this regard, the agency asserts that the solicitation unambiguously describes the required services as support services for the agency’s use of the vendor-proposed COTS SaaS solution, including installation, configuration, operation and maintenance, training, and help-desk services. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 20-23…”
“DECISION – Trigent Solutions, Inc., a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B21Q0171, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to procure an integrated commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software-as-a-service (SaaS) solution implemented as a common operating platform to support the agency’s operational decision-making capability. Trigent contends that several terms of the RFQ are ambiguous and unduly restrict competition. We deny the protest.”
