Gella LLC

B-409917.11 Jan 06, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gella LLC, of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), not to award the firm a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIHOD2014001 for administrative support services. Gella argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Gella LLC File:  B-409917.11 Date:  January 6, 2016 Dr. Jyothi Gella, Gella LLC, for the protester. Christian P. Maimone, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record provides no basis to question the agency’s evaluation. DECISION Gella LLC, of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), not to award the firm a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIHOD2014001 for administrative support services.  Gella argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, known as the Long Term Administrative Support Contract II (LTASCII), contemplates the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for the provision of long-term administrative support services across all of the NIH Institutes, Divisions, Centers and Offices.  RFP § B.1.  Contractors will be required to provide administrative support personnel over a 1-year base period and up to four 1-year option periods through the issuance of fixed-price task orders.  Id., § L.2.2.  The administrative tasks to be provided are for such services as general office support, travel support, meeting support, mail support, property management support, and publications support.  RFP § C.2.2. Award was to be made to the firms whose proposals were most advantageous to the government considering five evaluation factors:  management plan/corporate resources, related experience, key personnel, past performance, and price.  RFP § M.1.  When combined, the first three technical factors were more important than past performance; when combined all of the non-price factors were more important than price.  Id. The agency received 237 proposals in response to the solicitation.  Based on the initial evaluation, 31 proposals were found technically acceptable and 12 awards were made in April 2015.  A number of protests were subsequently filed with our Office.  In response, the agency took corrective action by reevaluating the proposals of the firms submitting timely protests, including Gella, and made one additional award.  Multiple protests were again filed with our Office, including one from Gella, and the agency again decided to take corrective action.  The agency conducted discussions with the protesters, offered them an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions, and evaluated those final proposal revisions.  Gella’s proposal was again evaluated as technically unacceptable with a high risk of unsuccessful performance.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 5g, Source Selection Authority Memo, Sept. 22, 2015, at 2.  Awards were ultimately made to 17 firms at evaluated prices between approximately $41.6 million and $49.5 million.  Gella filed this protest after its debriefing. Gella’s protest alleged that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable by challenging each weakness identified by the agency evaluators.  The agency report specifically addressed each allegation in detail.  AR, Legal Memorandum, at 4-8.  The entirety of Gella’s comments in response to the agency report were: We respectfully disagree with a number of statements made by the Contracting Officer; however, we stand on the merits of our initial protest filings and look forward to GAO’s decision. Gella E-Mail to GAO, Nov. 8, 2015, 8:17 p.m. Where an agency provides a detailed response to a protester’s assertions and the protester fails to rebut or otherwise substantively address the agency’s arguments in its comments, the protester provides us with no basis to conclude that the agency’s position with respect to the issues in question is unreasonable or improper.  Straughan Environmental, Inc., B-411650 et al., Sept. 18, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 287 at 9-10; Integriguard, LLC d/b/a HMS Fed.--Protest & Recon.,  B-407691.3, B-407691.4, Sept. 30, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 241 at 5; Israel Aircraft Indus. Ltd.--TAMAM Div., B-297691, Mar.