Hughes Group, LLC

B-410354.2 Jul 23, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hughes Group, LLC, dba HG Solutions, of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Oryza Group, LLC, of Douglasville, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-14-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Reserve Command, for sustainment information systems. Hughes contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View 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: Hughes Group, LLC File: B-410354.2 Date: July 23, 2015 Mark G. Jackson, Esq., and Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Rosenfield LLP, for the protester. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., and ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of a proposal as technically unacceptable is denied, where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Hughes Group, LLC, dba HG Solutions, of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Oryza Group, LLC, of Douglasville, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-14-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Reserve Command, for sustainment information systems. Hughes contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on June 11, 2014 as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-priced contract for non‑personal sustainment information system (SIS) support for a 1‑month phase-in period, an 11-month base period, and two 1-year option periods. The RFP required that the successful offeror would provide SIS support in seven business areas (BA): project management support (BA 1); sustainment automation system management office (SASMO) support (BA 2); network and technical support (BA 3); standard Army maintenance system--fleet management (BA 4); new equipment fielding facility--tactical computer exchange (NEFF-TCX) (BA 5); logistics data analysis tool (BA 6); and technical management support (BA 7). RFP, amend. 6, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 3-4. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically‑acceptable basis considering price and technical capability. Id. at 102. The technical capability evaluation factor consisted of three subfactors: management approach, staffing approach, and technical experience.[1] Id. Pursuant to the RFP, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s technical capability to determine whether: (1) all aspects of the proposal are “adequately feasible;” (2) the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements; and (3) the proposal provides “a practical/functional technical approach that meets the needs of the PWS.” Id. at 103. The RFP included specific standards of technical acceptability for each of the three subfactors. As relevant here, the RFP required under the management approach subfactor that offerors provide a comprehensive organizational structure; demonstrate a thorough understanding of the SIS and the ability to manage support services and subject matter expertise; and provide a realistic and effective 30 day phase-in plan. Id. With regard to the staffing approach subfactor, the RFP required offerors to provide a labor category description for each labor category proposed; demonstrate an understanding of the staffing resources required; and correlate the proposed personnel with the associated requirements for knowledge, skills, security clearances, education, and experience. Id. at 104. The RFP established that a proposal rated unacceptable under any of the three technical capability subfactors would be ineligible for award. Id. at 102. The agency received eight proposals, including Hughes’ and Oryza’s, by the December 12, 2014 closing date. The agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated Hughes’ and Oryza’s proposals as follows:     Hughes Oryza Technical Capability Management Approach Unacceptable Acceptable Staffing Approach Unacceptable Acceptable Technical Experience Acceptable Acceptable Overall Technical Rating   Unacceptable Acceptable Total Evaluated Price   $19,120,750 $22,810,378 AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Decision Document, at 6-7. The SSEB’s ratings were supported by a narrative, which detailed the evaluator’s findings for each subfactor.