PTSI Managed Services Inc

B-411412 Jul 20, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PTSI Managed Services, Inc. (PTSI), of Pasadena, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0177-14-R-0008, issued by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for comprehensive base operations services at the agency's headquarters campus, and logistics services at satellite sites. PTSI, the incumbent contractor, challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its proposal, and alleges that the agency unequally evaluated proposals and made an unreasonable competitive range determination. 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: PTSI Managed Services Inc. File: B-411412 Date: July 20, 2015 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Robert Sneckenberg, Esq., and Joelle Sires, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Debra E. Rubin, Esq., National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 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 challenging contracting agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal and its exclusion from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and where the agency reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal was not among the most highly rated proposals. DECISION PTSI Managed Services, Inc. (PTSI), of Pasadena, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0177-14-R-0008, issued by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for comprehensive base operations services at the agency’s headquarters campus, and logistics services at satellite sites. PTSI, the incumbent contractor, challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, and alleges that the agency unequally evaluated proposals and made an unreasonable competitive range determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 12, 2014, sought proposals to provide support to the agency’s Base Operations Service East (BOS-E) program, which includes comprehensive base operations services to NGA at its headquarters campus in Springfield, Virginia, and primarily logistics services to various satellite sites in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. RFP § B.1. Services are to include program management; workforce and security support; logistics support; construction, engineering, and operations support; installation and facility operations; maintenance and repair; grounds maintenance; and custodial services. Id. The RFP contemplates award of a contract consisting of fixed-price-award-fee, fixed-price, fixed-price-level-of-effort, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line items over a transition period, and ten one-year option periods. RFP §§ F.4, L.2. Award was to be made on a best value basis considering management, technical, past performance, security, and cost/price factors. RFP § M.3. Of the non-cost/price factors, management was to be the most important factor; the technical and past performance factors were to be equally rated and significantly less important than management, and the security factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. RFP § M.6.1. The non-cost/price evaluation factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The management factor included five subfactors listed in descending order of importance: management plan, staffing plan, sample project, transition plan and small business participation. Id. The technical factor included three subfactors listed in descending order of importance: technical plan, problem resolution and sample projects. Id. The past performance factor included four subfactors listed in descending order of importance: management performance, technical performance, cost/price control performance and small business participation performance. Id. Finally, the security factor included two subfactors for a facility security clearance and personnel security clearances, respectively. Id. The management and technical factors were to be assessed for quality and for risk, with risk carrying a heavier weight than quality.[1] RFP § M.6.2. Past performance was to be assessed for relevancy (very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, not relevant) and confidence (substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence and unknown confidence (neutral)). RFP § M.6.5. Cost and price was to be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.