Highlight Technologies, Inc.

The procurement

GSA issued an RFQ for a call order under its Corporate Information Technology Services BPA for enterprise data analytics shared services operations and maintenance (O&M) support, with a 12-month base, four 12-month options and a 6-month extension. Non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. FedTec, LLC (Good on technical capability, staffing and past performance) was selected at a total evaluated price of $33,924,699 over the incumbent, Highlight (Excellent on all three), at $42,874,971.

The protest

The RFQ had three optional line items. The DM&E (modernization and enhancement) line carried a pre-filled $2 million annual not-to-exceed price, but the two optional supplemental labor lines were not separately priced, and when Highlight asked about a ceiling for them the agency answered that the work would fall under the DM&E line. During evaluation, the agency added a separate $2 million per year ceiling for the supplemental labor lines to each vendor's evaluated price. Highlight argued this departed from the RFQ and misled it, and that had it known, it would have lowered its O&M price.

The agency’s answer

GSA said it added the ceiling to make sure the contract's ceiling price was accurate, and it added the same $10 million ($2 million a year over five 12-month periods) to both vendors, so the dollar difference between the quotations did not change. It also argued that a ceiling on optional work says nothing about how much of that work will actually be ordered.

What decided it

The added ceiling departed from the RFQ, but Highlight gave no evidence the error cost it a substantial chance at award.

GAO denied the protest. The agency's mid-evaluation addition of a $2 million per year ceiling for the optional supplemental labor lines was inconsistent with the RFQ's plain language, but competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest. Highlight gave no credible calculation of how its price would have changed, unreasonably treated a ceiling for optional work as a signal of how much O&M work the agency would order, and the $8.9 million gap was unchanged because the same amount was added to both quotations. GAO also upheld the tradeoff and dismissed Procurement Integrity Act allegations as legally insufficient.