IT Professionals, Inc.

B-411204 Jun 10, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IT Professionals, Inc. (ITP), of Ashburn, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to DigitalSpec, LLC, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. ED-FSA-14-R-0017, issued by the Department of Education for a wide variety of management support services to assist the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Technology Office in managing the agency's virtual data center, in Washington, D.C. RFP at 6. ITP argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal as unacceptable and thus made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: IT Professionals, Inc. File: B-411204 Date: June 10, 2015 Shyam Pai, IT Professionals, Inc., the protester. Tracey L. Sasser, Esq., and Antonier L. White, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal as unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria in solicitation.  DECISION IT Professionals, Inc. (ITP), of Ashburn, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to DigitalSpec, LLC, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. ED-FSA-14-R-0017, issued by the Department of Education for a wide variety of management support services to assist the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Technology Office in managing the agency’s virtual data center, in Washington, D.C.  RFP at 6.  ITP argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal as unacceptable and thus made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2014, the agency issued the RFP as a commercial item solicitation, seeking fixed-price proposals to provide services related to six core task areas, and three optional task areas, for a base year and four option years.  Agency Report (AR) at 1; RFP at 1, 43-44.  The RFP was set aside for competition by firms participating in the Small Business Administration’s Section 8(a) Program.  RFP at 44-45, 52. Award was to be made to the firm whose proposal was evaluated as the best value under three factors:  technical approach, past performance, and price.  When combined, technical approach and past performance were to be more important than price.  RFP at 70.  Under the technical approach factor, the RFP identified four subfactors, including understanding of the requirement.  Id. at 71.  Among other things, the understanding of the requirement subfactor advised offerors that the evaluation would consider whether the proposed approach reflected an appropriate “level of understanding of the breadth, scope and complexity of the work.”  Id.  To be considered for award, an adjectival rating of at least “good” was required under the technical approach factor and each of its subfactors.  Id. at 70. After receiving and evaluating initial proposals, the agency opened discussions.  During the first round of discussions, the contracting officer asked ITP to focus on more efficient approaches so that it could offer a more favorable price.  Comments, attach. 2, E-mail Discussions from Contracting Officer to ITP, Sept. 19, 2014, at 1-2.  In a succession of proposal revisions in the following days, ITP reduced its price, first by proposing to cut staffing by 1 full-time equivalent (FTE), AR Tab 7-1, ITP Revised Proposal Transmittal E-mail, Sept. 22, 2014, at 1, and then by 3 more FTEs.  See AR Tab 7‑3, ITP Revised Proposal, Sept. 25, 2014, vol. I, at 2. On January 6, 2015, a new contracting officer sent a final round of discussions questions, asking ITP to explain how reducing its staffing level to 12.5 FTEs would be sufficient to perform the work.  The inquiry noted specifically that the reductions were by 50 percent or more from the level of effort the agency had estimated for three of the core six task areas.  Supplemental AR Tab B, item 1, Discussions E‑mail, Jan. 6, 2015, at 1; AR Tab 4, item a[1], Attachment to Discussions E-mail, at 1.  The January 6 discussions letter also set forth an amendment to the RFP: PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:  The Government initially planned that support performed under this acquisition would be provided on-site at FSA [Federal Student Aid] Headquarters in Washington, DC.  Due to space constraints[,] all work will be performed off-site and no Government equipment will be provided; therefore the contractor will be responsible for all necessary resources . . . to perform the required support.  Id.