Bid protest decision

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:  W.W. Grainger, Inc.

File:  B-420045; B-420045.2

Date:  November 4, 2021

Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Katie A. Calogero, Esq., and Daniel J. Alvarado, Esq.,

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester.

Michael D. McGill, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for MSC

Industrical Direct Co., Inc., the intervenor.

Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., and Nathan Bangsil, Esq., General Services Administration,

for the agency.

Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,

participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that the agency failed to consider awardee’s past performance

information in its evaluation under the technical approach and corporate experience factors

is denied where the solicitation did not require the agency to consider such

information.

2.  Protest alleging that the agency engaged in disparate treatment and evaluated

quotations unequally by failing to assess strengths equally for similar aspects of the

vendors’ quotations are denied, where the agency assessed strengths to similar aspects of

the protester’s quotation and difference in the evaluation narratives resulted from

differences between the quotations.

3.  Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision is denied where the

record reflects that the source selection authority reasonably found the quotations of the

awardee and the protester to be technically equal and selected the lower-priced quotation

for award.

DECISION

W.W. Grainger, Inc., of Lake Forest, Illinois, protests the establishment of a blanket

purchase agreement (BPA) with the contractor team led by MSC Industrial Direct Company,

Inc., of Davidson, North Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ)

No. 47QSCC‑20‑Q-5015, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal

Acquisition Service, to provide 4th Party Logistics (4PL) supplies and services for the

United States Marine Corps.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably

evaluated the awardee’s quotation and treated the vendors unequally.  The protester

also challenges the agency’s best-value determination.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ was issued on February 10, 2021, to holders of GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule

(MAS) contracts with the special item number (SIN) for 4PL supplies and services under the

Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart

8.4.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ

at 1.  The solicitation noted that it was open to all contractor teaming

arrangements (CTA) comprised of MAS vendors who have the 4PL SIN in their MAS

contracts.  Id.

The solicitation sought to provide 4PL products and services, including a comprehensive

products and related in-store services for retail storefronts and virtual markets, at

various Marine Corps locations.[1]  RFQ at 3.  The RFQ anticipated

the establishment of a fixed-price BPA under the vendor’s GSA schedule contract with

a 5‑year performance period consisting of a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year

options.  Id. at 22.

The RFQ advised that a BPA would be established with the vendor whose quotation is

determined to present the best value for the government, price and other factors

considered.  Id. at 46.  Quotations would be evaluated under five factors,

listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach; (2) breadth of

product; (3) corporate experience and references; (4) small business participation

plan; and (5) price.  Id. at 46-47.  The RFQ informed vendors

that, when combined, the four technical factors were significantly more important than

price and, as technical ratings become equal, price may be a determining factor for the

basis of award.  Id. at 46.

As relevant here, the solicitation provided that quotations would be evaluated under the

technical approach factor to determine the degree to which the submitted quotation meets

the RFQ’s requirements and demonstrates the vendor’s capability to deliver performance at

the 4PL locations specified in the RFQ.  Id. at 47.  The solicitation

further provided that the vendor’s corporate experience and references would be evaluated

on the degree of relevancy to the requirements being solicited.  Id. at

51.

The agency received timely quotations from two teams of vendors:  team 1, comprised

of W.W. Grainger, Inc. (team lead) and Office Depot, Inc. (together, “Team Grainger”); and

team 2, comprised of MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (team lead), LC Industries, Inc., and

OSC Solutions, Inc. (together, “Team MSC”).  AR, Tab 15, Award Determination

Memorandum at 2.  The agency evaluated the quotations from Team Grainger and Team MSC

as follows:[2]

TEAM GRAINGER

TEAM MSC

Technical Approach

Outstanding

Outstanding

Breadth of Product

Excellent-High

Excellent-High

Corporate Experience and References

Highly Relevant

Highly Relevant

Small Business Participation Plan

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Total Evaluated Price

$45,095,682

$39,442,169

Id. at 13.

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the composite evaluations of the technical

evaluation board (TEB) and performed a best-value analysis, considering each team’s

quotation in the process.  Id. at 13-14.  Finding that there were “no

discernible differences in terms of technical benefit to the government,” the SSA concluded

that Team MSC’s quotation, with its significantly lower price, represented the best value

for the government.  Id. at 15, 16.

The agency notified Team Grainger of its selection decision on July 26, 2021, and, after

the agency provided its brief explanation of award decision on July 28, this protest

followed.

DISCUSSION

The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s quotation under

the technical approach and corporate experience factors by failing to consider past

performance problems and other known information about MSC.  The protester also

contends that the agency treated vendors unequally under the technical approach

factor.  Finally, the protester argues that the agency made a flawed best-value source

selection decision that ignored the underlying merits of quotations.[3]  In response, the agency contends that

its evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.  For the reasons

discussed below, we deny Grainger’s protest.[4]

Technical Approach

In its challenge to the agency’s evaluation of quotations under the technical approach

factor, Grainger first argues that the agency improperly failed to consider the awardee’s

alleged past performance deficiencies and public announcement of office closures in finding

the awardee’s technical approach to be outstanding.  Protest at 12-15; Protester’s

Comments and Supp. Protest (Supp. Protest) at 29-31.  The protester also contends that

the agency treated the vendors unequally by identifying strengths in the awardee’s

quotation without identifying strengths for similar aspects of the protester’s

quotations.  Supp. Protest at 12-17.

As an initial matter, where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS vendors under FAR

subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition for the issuance of an order or establishment of a

BPA, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and

consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and

regulations.  Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26

at 3-4; DEI Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 151 at 2.  In

reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation, our Office will not

reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the

agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the

solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.  OPTIMUS Corp.,

B‑400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 33 at 4.  A protester’s disagreement with the

agency’s judgment, without more, does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.

DEI Consulting, supra.

Consideration of Information Outside of Awardee’s Quotation

The protester argues that the agency should have considered certain relevant information

about MSC’s past performance and its public announcement about office closures to identify

weaknesses or performance risks in the awardee’s technical approach.  Protest

at 12‑15; Supp. Protest at 29-31.  The agency responds that the solicitation did

not require the agency to consider any information outside of the four corners of the

vendor’s quotation in its evaluation under the technical approach factor.  MOL at

13-16.

The RFQ stated that the agency’s evaluation under the technical approach factor would

“review TAB C submitted in Part I of the quotation,” the technical approach portion of the

vendor’s technical quotation, “to determine the degree to which the [quotation] meets the

requirements listed in Section L.4.3” of the RFQ and “how well the [quotation]

demonstrate[s] the vendor’s capability to deliver performance at the 4PL locations.”

RFQ at 38, 47.  Section L.4.3 of the RFQ, in turn, instructed vendors to provide a

narrative that addresses the vendor’s capacity to simultaneously manage all 4PL locations

identified in the solicitation, with emphasis on three specific elements:

(1) supply chain capacity; (2) proposed staffing and resources plan; and

(3) quality control and risk management plan.  Id. at 38-39.

The protester claims that MSC has a history of failing to fulfill orders under its

incumbent 4PL BPA and, as a result, cannot demonstrate its ability to meet the requirement

for “product sourcing capabilities and supplier relationships” or “surge and sustainment”

under the supply chain capacity element.  Protest at 13-14; RFQ at 38.  The

protester also points to MSC’s recent public announcement of permanent closure of 73 branch

offices to argue that the awardee cannot demonstrate an adequate “current and planned

capacity of warehouses and/or distribution centers,” another requirement under the supply

chain capacity element.[5]

Id.

The protester further contends that the alleged performance problems and branch offices

closures are also evidence that the awardee cannot demonstrate an adequate staffing and

resource plan.  Protest at 14.  Finally, the protester argues that the awardee

cannot demonstrate an adequate quality control and risk management plan because the FAPIIS

report for MSC shows a termination for cause for delivered parts that were rejected by the

customer under an unrelated task order.  Id. at 15.

Our review of the record, however, shows that the agency’s findings were reasonable and

consistent with the solicitation.  That is, contrary to the protester’s contentions,

the agency reasonably found that the awardee’s technical approach “demonstrated their

capability to deliver exceptional performance at the 4PL locations” and its quotation

demonstrated corporate experience “that involved essentially the same magnitude of effort

and complexity in all five of the relevant areas.”  AR, Tab 15, Award Determination

Memorandum at 5, 10.  Therefore, as discussed below, we have no basis to sustain the

protester’s allegations.

The record contains a detailed explanation of the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s

quotation.  The evaluators assigned several strengths to the awardee’s technical

approach under the supply chain capacity element, specifically finding that Team MSC’s

narrative described a dedicated product sourcing team, demonstrating “a practical approach

to sourcing the variety of product lines required by the variety of locations included in

this RFQ.”  AR, Tab 9, Team MSC Composite Evaluation Report at 3.  The

evaluators also noted a strength for Team MSC’s “expansive supplier relationships and large

catalog.”  Id.  Moreover, the evaluators assigned a strength to Team MSC’s

quotation for its “well‑defined [surge and sustainment] plan with dedicated resources and

personnel” and found that this capability “has been validated through prior [surge and

sustainment] supported events.”  Id. at 4.The evaluators further assigned a

strength for Team MSC’s “distribution network [that] includes seven regional customer

fulfillment centers/distribution centers [] totaling more than 3 million square feet and

housing more than 1.7 [million] products and $561 [million] in inventory,” finding

that Team MSC demonstrated “redundant and effective capabilities to support required

locations within their current distribution center operations.”  Id.

Moreover, the agency assigned several strengths to Team MSC’s quotation under the

staffing and resource plan element, finding that Team MSC’s organizational structure of

specialized teams support effective implementation and its employee screening process

minimize risk associated with the implementation timeline.  AR, Tab 9, Team MSC

Composite Evaluation Report at 5.  The evaluators also assigned several strengths to

Team MSC’s quality control and risk management plans, finding that Team MSC’s quality

control was “built into the process, reducing errors in purchase sales and warehousing

activities.”  Id. at 6.  The agency also noted that Team MSC’s narrative

described a “detailed risk management plan with associated mitigation strategies,

capabilities and alternatives” that increases the likelihood for a successful

implementation upon contract award.  Id.

The evaluation of a vendor’s quotation is a matter within the agency’s discretion.

See SOURCECORP BPS Inc., B‑406792, Aug. 24, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 250

at 3.  As noted, in reviewing protests challenging an agency’s evaluation, our

Office does not reevaluate quotations; rather, we review the agency’s evaluation to

determine whether it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, as well as

applicable statutes and regulations.  Ascella Techs. Inc., B‑412679,

B‑412679.2, Apr. 27, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 123 at 3.

Here, we find that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the

solicitation.  First, we note that the protester does not allege any error with the

agency’s evaluation of Team MSC’s technical approach quotation as actually submitted by

Team MSC.  Rather, the protester’s challenges here boil down to an allegation that the

agency should have considered information outside of the awardee’s quotation--i.e.,

awardee’s past performance and public announcement--in assessing the awardee’s technical

approach.  Nothing in the solicitation, however, required the agency to consider such

information in its evaluation under the technical approach factor.  The RFQ plainly

stated that, for the purpose of evaluating the vendor’s technical approach, the agency

would review and consider the information in the technical approach section of the vendors’

quotation.  See RFQ at 47.  The record here shows that the agency

evaluated the awardee’s quotation under the technical approach factor reasonably and in

conformance with the stated evaluation criteria.  Therefore, we find nothing improper

in the agency’s refusal to consider the past performance and office closure information

presented by the protester in its evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the technical

approach factor.

In addition, while the protester argues that the solicitation contains language that

permits the agency to consider past performance, the protester refers only to the

solicitation provision addressing the determination of responsibility of the presumptive

awardee.  Supp. Protest at 29; see RFQ at 46.  Setting aside the

permissive--not mandatory--language of the cited solicitation provision, that provision

expressly states that the agency reserves the right to review performance reports included

in FAPIIS and CPARS and consider such information “in the process of conducting . . .

vendor responsibility reviews” for the presumptive awardee.  RFQ at 46.  Our

Office generally will not consider a protest challenging an agency’s affirmative

determination of a vendor’s responsibility, except where the protester presents specific

evidence that the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider information that, by

its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be

found responsible.  4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c); FCi Fed., Inc., B‑408558.4 et

al., Oct. 20, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 308 at 7.  The allegations that our Office has

reviewed in the context of an affirmative determination of responsibility generally pertain

to very serious matters, such as potential criminal activity.  Great Lakes Dredge &

Dock Co., LLC, B-416073, May 24, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 194 at 7.

Here, in contrast, the information presented by the protester does not rise to the level

of seriousness that the contracting officer would reasonably be expected to consider in

determining the responsibility of the prospective awardee.  Thus, we conclude that the

protester has not proffered sufficient evidence as to present an exception to our rules

regarding challenges to an agency’s affirmative determination of responsibility.

Disparate Treatment

The protester next contends that the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations was

unequal and disparate.  Specifically, the protester argues that, in various instances

under the technical approach factor, the agency’s evaluation was not even-handed.

In this context, the protester alleges the agency assigned strengths to Team MSC’s

quotation but not to Team Grainger’s quotation, even though Team Grainger’s approach was

“substantively indistinguishable” from Team MSC’s approach.  Supp. Protest

at 12‑17.  We have fully considered all of the protester’s arguments and conclude

that none provide a basis to sustain the protest.  We discuss a representative example

below.

In conducting procurements, agencies may not generally engage in conduct that amounts to

unfair or disparate treatment of competing vendors.  Arc Aspicio, LLC et al.,

B-412612 et al., Apr. 11, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 117 at 13.  When a protester alleges

disparate treatment in a technical evaluation, it must show that the differences in the

evaluation did not stem from differences between the vendors’ quotations.  Id.;

INDUS Tech., Inc., B-411702 et al., Sept. 29, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 304 at 6.

Accordingly, to prevail on an allegation of disparate treatment, a protester must

show that the agency unreasonably failed to assess strengths for aspects of its quotation

that were substantively indistinguishable from, or nearly identical to, those contained in

other quotations. See Battelle Memorial Inst., B-418047.3, B-418047.4, May 18, 2020,

2020 CPD ¶ 176 at 5.  Based on our review of the record here, we find that the

protester has not made such a showing.

The protester contends, for example, that the agency assessed a strength to Team MSC’s

quotation for the description of its existing electronic data interface (EDI) capabilities,

but failed to assess a strength to the same aspect in Team Grainger’s quotation.

Supp. Protest at 13-15.  The agency responds that it did assess a strength to the

aspect of Team Grainger’s quotation that discusses its EDI capabilities.  Supp. MOL at

5-6.

The record shows that the agency assessed a strength to Team MSC’s technical approach

for its “existing EDI capabilities and integration with GSA,” finding that it “demonstrates

MSC’s current ability to use existing EDI integration processes with GSA to reduce

implementation risk and lead time to start up operations.”  AR, Tab 9, Team MSC

Composite Evaluation Report at 3.  We find that the agency’s conclusions are

reasonably supported by Team MSC’s quotation, which discusses the integration of EDI with

GSA’s systems multiple times throughout its description under the supply chain capacity

element.  See AR, Tab 3.3, Team MSC Technical Approach at 1-5.

The protester contends that it too described similar EDI capabilities in its quotation,

citing to the portion of its quotation that states, “Grainger has integrated its U.S.

supply chain network with GSAs [Enhanced Check-Out (GECO)] EDI process to meet product

needs and stock rate requirements for each 4PL location.”  Supp. Protest at 14

citing AR, Tab 5.3, Team Grainger Technical Approach at 4 (emphasis

added).  As the cited language shows, this portion of Team Grainger’s quotation

mentions EDI mainly in the context of describing its internal electronic supply chain

management system, [DELETED], and how it is integrated with GSA’s EDI.  See AR,

Tab 5.3, Team Grainger Technical Approach at 4‑5.

In its evaluation of the protester’s quotation, the agency did not specifically mention

EDI, but assessed a strength for the protester’s use of [DELETED] as its internal

electronic supply chain management system.  AR, Tab 10, Team Grainger Composite

Evaluation Report at 3.  In fact, in describing this strength, the agency specifically

noted that Team Grainger “has integrated its U.S. supply chain network to meet product

needs and stock rate requirements, minimizing risk associated with supporting the

number of locations included in this requirement,” echoing the language from the portion of

Team Grainger’s quotation discussing the integration of its supply chain management system

with GSA’s EDI.  Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

On this record, we find no merit to the protester’s argument that the agency should have

assessed a separate and additional strength for the protester’s mention of EDI in its

technical approach.  Although the protester complains that the strength the agency

assigned to its proposal was for its supply chain network and not specifically for EDI, we

find that the evaluators clearly considered the portion of Team Grainger’s quotation

discussing the integration of its electronic supply chain management system with EDI and

assessed a strength for that aspect.  The difference in the evaluation narrative was

reflective of the difference in the quotations’ narratives, where Team Grainger’s

quotation, unlike the awardee’s, only mentioned EDI in the context of its [DELETED] as an

integrated supply chain management system without otherwise describing its use in the

context of Team Grainger’s technical approach.  Therefore, the record here shows that

the agency reasonably evaluated each vendor’s strengths under the technical approach

factor, and the difference in the documentation of evaluations resulted from differences in

the vendors’ quotations.  See INDUS Tech., Inc., supra.

Corporate Experience and References

Next, the protester contends that the agency erred in its evaluation of the awardee’s

quotation under the corporate experience and references factor by not considering the

alleged past performance problems of MSC.  Protest at 15-16; Supp. Protest

at 29‑31.  The agency responds that, as with the evaluation scheme for the

technical approach factor, the stated evaluation scheme for the corporate experience and

reference factor did not contemplate or require evaluation of vendors’ past

performance.  MOL at 16-17.

The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate the submitted corporate experience

narratives “to assess the degree of relevancy to the requirements being solicited,” and

informed vendors that the “highest degree of relevancy will be reserved for vendors that

demonstrate their corporate experience in all five relevant areas as the prime vendor,

under one government contract (not collectively under multiple government

contracts).”  Id. at 51.  The RFQ also provided that the agency may

contact the provided government reference “in order to make a reasoned judgment regarding

the relevancy of the vendors’ corporate experience.”  Id.

In evaluating the awardee’s quotation, the agency found Team MSC’s corporate experience

and reference to be highly relevant.  AR, Tab 9, Team MSC Composite Evaluation Report

at 1.  Specifically, the agency found that Team MSC’s narrative demonstrated highly

relevant experience under each of the five relevant areas, performed under one government

contract.  Id. at 8-9.

A corporate experience evaluation is distinct from an evaluation of past

performance.  Ausley Assocs., Inc., B-417509 et al., July 24, 2019, 2019

CPD ¶ 279 at 3.  Specifically, a corporate experience evaluation focuses on

whether an offeror has actually performed similar work, while a past performance evaluation

concerns the quality of the work.  IBM Corporation, B‑415798, Mar. 27,

2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 130 at 5.

Based on this record, we find no merit to Grainger’s challenge to the agency’s

evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the corporate experience factor.  Here,

the protester seeks to impose a requirement that the agency perform a qualitative

assessment of the awardee’s corporate experience, even though the solicitation does not

contemplate such an evaluation.

We note that, as with the protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the

awardee’s technical approach, the protester here does not argue that the awardee lacks

relevant experience or that the awardee’s corporate experience narrative does not warrant

the rating of highly relevant.  Rather, the protester argues that the agency should

have considered the quality of the awardee’s performance under the referenced

contract.  Supp. Protest at 29‑31.  The solicitation, however, unambiguously

stated that the agency would evaluate the relevance of the vendors’ corporate experience to

the requirements being solicited under the corporate experience and reference factor.

See RFQ at 51.  Nothing in the solicitation provided that the agency would

consider the quality of performance related to the vendor’s cited corporate

experience.  Moreover, as noted, the solicitation’s only reference to consideration of

past performance information is in the context of the agency’s determination of

responsibility for the presumptive awardee.  See RFQ at 46.

On this record, we find unobjectionable the agency’s conclusion that the solicitation

here did not anticipate, and thus the agency did not perform, a qualitative assessment of

the awardee’s past performance under the corporate experience and references factor.

See Amyx, Inc., B‑410623, B‑410623.2, Jan. 16, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 45 at

14‑15 (finding that the agency reasonably evaluated relevant experience as distinct from

the past performance evaluation where past performance relates to how well a contractor

performed, while relevant experience pertains to the type of work a contractor

performed).  Accordingly, we deny this protest ground.

Source Selection Decision

Finally, Grainger challenges the agency’s best-value determination in its source

selection decision.  The protester contends that the SSA failed to look beyond the

adjectival ratings in concluding that the vendors were technically equal and issuing the

BPA to the awardee for its lower-priced quotation.  Protest at 21-22; Supp. Protest

at 17-29.  The protester also argues that the contemporaneous record is devoid of

any comparative analysis of differences between quotations.  Supp. Comments

at 18‑22.

While an agency is not obligated to extensively document every consideration made in its

tradeoff decision, it is required to adequately explain and document the basis for its

source selection determination.  VariQ Corp., B‑414650.11, B‑414650.15,

May 30, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 199 at 11.  Moreover, our Office has

consistently explained that evaluation ratings are merely guides for intelligent

decision-making in the procurement process; the evaluation of proposals or quotations and

consideration of their relative merit should be based upon a qualitative assessment

consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme.  Highmark Medicare Servs.,

Inc., et al., B‑401062.5 et al., Oct. 29, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 285

at 19.

Additionally, agencies may find that vendors’ quotations are technically equivalent;

however, the selection official must explain the basis for why quotations are considered

technically equivalent.  See Arctic Slope Tech. Servs., Inc., B‑411776,

B‑411776.2, Oct. 20, 2015, 2017 CPD ¶ 6 at 5.  In this regard, where

selection officials reasonably regard quotations as being essentially equal technically,

price properly may become the determining factor in making award, and it is not necessary

to perform a price/technical tradeoff.  See Oracle America, Inc., B‑417046,

Jan. 31, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 74 at 15 citing Staff Tech, Inc.,

B‑403035.2, B-403035.3, Sept. 20, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 233 at 6; see also

Synergetics, Inc., B‑299904, Sept. 14, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 168 at 8 (“Since the

record shows that the agency determined that the quotations, although different in content,

relatively were equal under the non-price factors, its decision to make low price the

deciding factor was fully consistent with the RFQ award criteria, and we have no basis to

find any error in the source selection.”).

Here, although Grainger complains that the agency did not qualitatively analyze or

compare the underlying merits of the quotations, the agency’s award determination

memorandum demonstrates that the selection official reviewed the underlying evaluation

results under each non-price factor and considered the qualitative value of each technical

quotation.  See AR, Tab 15, Award Determination Memorandum at 3‑11.

Based on this review and consideration, the SSA concluded that the vendors’ quotations

were technically equal, and reasonably determined that Team MSC’s lower‑priced quotation

represented the best value to the agency.  Id. at 12-15.

For example, with regard to the technical approach factor, the SSA concluded as

follows:

[B]oth quotation submissions contained strengths across all

elements and neither contained any weaknesses.  While the technical approaches were

not identical, I did not find any significant differences in the degree to which both CTAs

demonstrated a comprehensive, effective, and efficient approach/methodology for meeting,

integrating, and accomplishing the requirements listed in RFQ Section L.4.3.  I also

did not find any significant differences in the degree to which both CTAs demonstrated an

effective and efficient approach for meeting or exceeding the requirements of the

RFQ[.]

Id. at 14.  Similarly, for the corporate experience and references factor,

the SSA noted as follows:

[B]oth CTAs were found to have the highest degree of relevant

experience in all five areas identified in the solicitation.  The CTA team

leaders - whose experience was used for their respective team’s submission - for both

quotation submissions are current 4PL BPA holders, as identified within each of the

respective submitted quotes.  As such, there were no distinguishing components from

either submission in the evaluations that led to either CTA being “more” or “less”

experienced as required by the RFQ[.]

Id.  Based on these reasoned findings, the SSA concluded that “(1) both CTAs

have highly relevant 4PL experience, and (2) both CTAs are able to fulfill this requirement

at the highest level.”  Id. at 15.

After determining that the quotations were technically equal, the SSA considered price

as the determining factor, noting that “the government is compelled to award to Team MSC,

by virtue of the significant difference in total evaluated price with no discernable

difference in terms of technical benefit to the government.”  Id.  As

noted, the RFQ informed vendors that, while the four technical factors combined were

significantly more important than price, price may be a determining factor for the basis of

award as technical ratings become equal.  RFQ at 46.  Accordingly, based upon our

review of the record, we find that the SSA’s decision to make price the deciding factor

here was consistent with the solicitation, and we find no basis to find that the agency

failed to adequately document the source selection decision.  See Oracle America,

Inc., supra.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez

General Counsel

[1] According to the agency, under the 4PL

program, GSA serves as an integrator (i.e., fourth party) that assembles the

resources, capabilities and technology to design, build, and run a comprehensive supply

chain solution for other federal agencies as customers.  COS at 1.  Under the

program, the 4PL vendor would provide and deliver the actual products for the GSA-run

retail stores at specified customer locations, as well as the full range of logistical

support, transportation, inventory management, and all other support services necessary

to support GSA’s operation of the 4PL locations.  RFQ at 5.

[2] The RFQ provided that, for the technical

approach factor, the agency would assign quotations a rating of outstanding,

satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.  RFQ at 47-48.  For the breadth of product

factor, the agency would assign quotations a rating of excellent‑high, excellent‑low,

good-high, good-low, marginal-high, marginal-low, or unsatisfactory.  Id.

at 50.  For the corporate experience and references factor, the agency would

assign quotations a rating of highly relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not

relevant.  Id. at 51.  For the small business participation plan

factor, the agency would assign quotations a rating of satisfactory or

unsatisfactory.  Id. at 52.

[3] In its initial protest, Grainger also

challenged the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the breadth of

product and price factors.  Protest at 21-22.  The agency substantively

responded to these challenges in its report, see Memorandum of Law (MOL)

at 17‑18, 20-22, but the protester did not address the agency’s response in its

comments.  See generally, Protester’s Comments and Supp. Protest.

Grainger’s failure to comment on the agency’s response to its initial grounds renders

those arguments abandoned and we will not consider them further.  Booz Allen

Hamilton, Inc., B‑414283, B‑414283.2, Apr. 27, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 159 at 5

n.9.

[4] Grainger also raises other collateral

arguments.  Even though we do not specifically address every argument, we have

reviewed them all and find no basis to sustain the protest.  For example, the

protester also alleges that the agency unreasonably waived for the awardee the

solicitation’s requirement for the written portion of quotations to be in 12-point type

size font.  Supp. Protest at 4-12; see RFQ at 36.  The record shows,

however, that both the protester’s and the awardee’s quotations used fonts smaller than

12-point type for texts within tables and charts.  See generally,

AR, Tab 3.3, Team MSC Quotation, Technical Approach; Tab 3.4, Team MSC Quotation,

Corporate Experience; Tab 5.3, Team Grainger Quotation, Technical Approach;

Tab 5.4, Team Grainger Quotation, Corporate Experience.

The agency contends that, when it noticed that both vendors used smaller fonts for

their tables and charts, it reasonably waived the font size requirement for tables and

charts in both quotations.  Supp. MOL at 3-4; Supp. COS at 1-2.

Although the protester argues that the use of noncompliant font size was more egregious

in Team MSC’s quotation than in Team Grainger’s quotation, the protester cannot show

that it was competitively prejudiced by the agency’s partial waiver of the font size

requirement when its own quotation also was not compliant with the requirement.

See Vencore, Inc., B-416994.2, B-416994.3, June 17, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 221 at

4-7 (finding that the protester was not prejudiced by the agency’s waiver of the font

type requirement for both offerors where both offerors’ proposals failed to comply with

the solicitation instructions).  Accordingly, we find no basis to sustain this

aspect of the protest.

[5] While not pertinent to our analysis

here, we note that the agency and the intervenor strongly dispute the protester’s

allegations with respect to MSC’s performance under the incumbent contract, other past

performance information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS), and the effect of MSC’s branch office closures on the awardee’s

ability to meet the requirements of this procurement.  See MOL

at 13-16; Intervenor Comments at 17-29 (stating, for example, that “MSC has never

experienced any material issues in fulfilling orders under its incumbent BPA due to any

factors within its control” and citing to the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) reports showing ratings of exceptional and very good for MSC’s work

under its incumbent BPA).  Resolution of this factual dispute, however, is not

necessary to resolve this protest allegation for the reasons discussed below.