Unified Business Technologies, Inc.

B-411056 May 01, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Unified Business Technologies, Inc. (UBT), of Troy, Michigan, protests the decision of the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, to eliminate its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-14-R-0030 for knowledge-based services. UBT alleges the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. 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: Unified Business Technologies, Inc. File: B-411056 Date: May 1, 2015 Steven J. Koprince, Esq., and Amanda M. Wilwert, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Kandis C. Gaines, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency misevaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where record reflects evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION Unified Business Technologies, Inc. (UBT), of Troy, Michigan, protests the decision of the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, to eliminate its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-14-R-0030 for knowledge-based services. UBT alleges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on August 1, 2014, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts with ordering periods of five years. RFP §§ A.1, A.6. The scope of work was described as “knowledge-based services,” to include “program or project management and administration, and the furnishing of professional advice or assistance, engineering and technical services, logistics management services, management support services, and professional services.” Id. § A.3. The awards were to be made based on a best-value tradeoff considering the following four factors, listed in descending order of importance: experience; technical; cost/price; and small business participation. RFP §§ M.1.1, M.4.2. The solicitation included a statement of work establishing the requirements for the overarching ID/IQ contracts. RFP § C. The solicitation also included a performance work statement (PWS) for a task order requirement known as “Network Integration Exercise” (NIE).[1] AR, Tab 3-3, NIE PWS. The NIE PWS grouped the requirements into the following four areas: public affairs/protocol/administrative officer services; schedule, risk, and data management services; operations management services; and logistics support services. Id. §§ 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4. Within their proposals for the overarching ID/IQ contracts, offerors were to provide a “specific technical approach” for performance of the NIE PWS requirements. RFP § L.5.1.2. The solicitation provided that under the technical factor, the agency would evaluate an offeror’s approach to the NIE PWS requirements as follows: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s analysis and discussion of key success drivers and risks of the NIE PWS . . . in the areas of performance, schedule, and cost efficiencies, to assess the proposal risk probability that the offeror will successfully achieve task order requirements and objectives. Based on the offeror’s analysis of the NIE PWS . . . , the Government will: (1) evaluate the extent to which the offeror identified specific and necessary tasks required for the completion of the task order requirements along with a detailed and reasonable explanation of the proposed approach for executing those tasks; and (2) assess the risk the offeror’s proposed technical approach will result in timely completion of the NIE task order requirements. Id. §§ M.6.1.1, M.6.1.2. The agency received a timely proposal from UBT. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Legal Memorandum ¶ 7. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposal and assigned it no strengths, one significant weakness, and four deficiencies under the technical factor. AR, Tab 5-1, UBT Technical Evaluation, at 5-6. The four deficiencies were assigned on the basis that UBT’s proposal lacked a technical approach to accomplish the requirements in each of the four NIE PWS task areas. Id. The substantial weakness was assigned on the basis that UBT’s proposal was ambiguous in its discussion of the “key success drivers” for performance of the NIE PWS. Id. at 2-3. Based on the evaluation results, the SSEB rated UBT’s proposal “unacceptable” and “unawardable.” AR, Tab 5-1, UBT Technical Evaluation, at 6.