Oakland Consulting Group, Inc.

B-412054.2 Sep 19, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Oakland Consulting Group, Inc., a small business of Lanham, Maryland, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4701-15-R-0030, for information technology (IT) services known as J6 Enterprise Technology Services (JETS). Oakland challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal. 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:  Oakland Consulting Group, Inc. File:  B-412054.2 Date:  September 19, 2016 John R. Tolle, Esq., and Ian A. Cronogue, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Elizabeth Amato, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., Nora K. Adkins, Esq. and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the protester’s exclusion from the competitive range is denied where the agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation criteria. DECISION Oakland Consulting Group, Inc., a small business of Lanham, Maryland, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4701-15-R-0030, for information technology (IT) services known as J6 Enterprise Technology Services (JETS).  Oakland challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on July 10, 2015, sought contractors to provide a full range of JETS IT services across the DLA Information Operations Enterprise, the DLA Program Executive Offices, and all other technology service requirements currently supported through DLA Contracting Services Office acquisitions.  RFP at 9.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts for a 5-year base period with one 3‑year option period, and a total ceiling dollar value of approximately $6 billion.[2]  Id. at 8. For purposes of evaluation and award, the RFP provided that the proposals would be separated into three socio-economic groups:  other than small business, small business, and 8(a) business offerors.  Id. at 141.  A competitive range would be established within each group, and awards would be made to the firms whose proposals offered the best value to the agency considering price and the following non-price evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance):  technical merit, past performance, and partnering and strategic alliance.[3]  The technical merit evaluation factor was composed of three subfactors:  technical approach, management approach, and key personnel.  The non‑price evaluation factors were “significantly more important” than price.  Id. at 139. Offerors were informed that their proposals were to include sufficient detail to allow the agency to effectively evaluate and substantiate the offerors’ claims.  Id. at 123.  The solicitation also warned offerors not to restate or rephrase the government’s requirements, “but rather provide a convincing rationale explaining how the offeror intends to meet the requirements.”  Id. at 123.  Under the technical approach subfactor, offerors were required to “[d]escribe in detail” their approach to performing the work required under 21 task areas defined in the solicitation.  Id. at 129.  Offerors would be evaluated on their approach to providing services and support for the 21 areas.  Id. at 141-142.  As relevant here, under task area 13, Enterprise Support Services, the RFP required offerors to describe their approach to provide technical support to the Program Executive Office (PEO) Investment Portfolio Management Acquisition and Operation oversight offices in such areas as:  development and maintenance of PEO policies, processes, and procedures; strategic direction and objectives recommendations including development of recommendations of key business elements such as technology enhancements (among other things); technical support to the acquisition director in reporting to various government entities; support in ensuring DLA’s continuing compliance with related regulations and directives; and gathering, analysis, and implementation of data input forms and web reports for various functions supporting the DLA IT Investment Portfolio.  Id. at 42‑44.  The RFP also required offerors to describe their approach to both basic level administrative support services and high level administrative support functions.  Id.