Protest challenging the agency’s acceptance of quotations for a blanket purchase agreement is denied, where the RFQ did not require offerors to propose the exact labor categories listed in the solicitation as long as the categories used reasonably matched the agency’s requirements, and where the protester itself proposed labor categories that were not listed in the RFQ.

Ruchman and Associates Inc. protested the Drug Enforcement Agency’s establishment of a blanket purchase agreement for accounting and finance support services with Information Technology Coalition Inc., challenging the agency’s evaluation and price realism analysis.

First, Ruchman alleged that DEA should have rejected quotations submitted by ITC and another competing vendor because their underlying Federal Supply Schedule contracts did not contain the RFQ’s exact labor categories or other categories that could perform the required functions. Ruchman also alleged that the agency’s price realism analysis was unreasonable and undocumented, and that a proper in-depth realism analysis would have revealed that ITC and another competing vendor proposed unrealistic prices. Finally, Ruchman challenged the unacceptable ratings assigned for security and past performance, among other areas of the evaluation.

In response, DEA noted that the RFQ did not require vendors to propose the exact labor categories in the RFQ; rather, DEA argued, the solicitation requested that vendors propose equivalent labor categories that matched the job descriptions provided in the Statement of Work. The agency further noted that not only did Ruchman propose labor categories with titles different from those in the RFQ, but other offerors did the same and had the same understanding of the solicitation. The agency asserted that given the flexibility permitted by the RFQ and understood by the vendors, its decision not to disqualify vendors was reasonable.

DEA also maintained that it followed the language in the solicitation explaining that it would compare price quotes to the independent government cost estimate without evaluating separate cost elements. In DEA’s view, it reasonably concluded that ITC’s price was realistic thought it was 6 percent less than the IGCE. Lastly, the agency defended its assignment of unacceptable ratings to Ruchman’s proposal under the security and past performance factors.

GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. GAO first found that DEA reasonably decided to accept the vendors’ proposed labor categories because they were reasonably considered as meeting the agency’s needs. GAO determined that Ruchman was not prejudiced by the agency’s broad consideration of labor categories because the protester itself successfully proposed labor categories that were not stated in the RFQ.

GAO also denied the protester’s challenge to DEA’s price realism analysis, finding that the solicitation provided for the very comparative analysis that the agency performed. As a final matter, GAO dismissed Ruchman’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of its own quotation since the protester lacked standing to challenge the evaluation of ITC. Even if Ruchman’s quotation was deemed acceptable, it was the third lowest price for an LPTA procurement, and therefore, would not be in line for award.

Ruchman and Associates Inc. is represented by Thomas P. McLish, Elise A. Farrell, Joseph W. Whitehead, and Scott M. Heinberg, of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Information Technology Coalition Inc. is represented by Daniel R. Forman, Elizabeth Buehler, Charles Baek, and Rosamond Xiang, of Crowell & Moring LLP. The government is represented by James E. Hicks and Susan M. Colarco, Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Stephanie B. Magnell and Amy B. Pereira participated in the preparation of the decision.