Adino Inc.

B-412144 Dec 24, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Adino Inc., of Chicago Heights, Illinois, a small business, protests the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development Administration's exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG-31ME-S-15-0018, for services in support of the Centralized Servicing Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Adino challenges the conduct of the procurement and the 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:      Adino Inc. File:                B-412144 Date:              December 24, 2015 Theodore P. Watson, Esq., Nicole Carter, Esq., and Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Watson & Associates, LLC, for the protester. Melissa McClellan, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Laura Eyester, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where the record shows that agency reasonably evaluated protester’s proposal and concluded that the proposal was not among the most highly rated. DECISION Adino Inc., of Chicago Heights, Illinois, a small business, protests the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development Administration’s exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG-31ME-S-15-0018, for services in support of the Centralized Servicing Center in St. Louis, Missouri.  Adino challenges the conduct of the procurement and the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest.    BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 17, 2015 as a set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with a 1-year base period and four 1‑year options, for loan servicing, loss mitigation processing, property disposition, loss claim processing, administrative and support functions, data entry, and customer service phone support for USDA’s Centralized Servicing Center.  RFP at 3.  The RFP combined two prior USDA contracts:  one for administrative support services (in which Adino is the incumbent), and one for imaging and file maintenance.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis considering the following three evaluation factors:  (1) understanding of and technical approach to the requirements, and qualifications; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Revised Evaluation Criteria, at 2.  The technical factor contained six subfactors of equal weight:  (1) degree the proposed approach meets the requirements within the required schedule; (2) approach for providing quality management for work performed under the contract to ensure deliverables meet or exceed the requirements; (3) approach for resolution of anticipated or potential difficulties and problem areas, and well-reasoned plans for anticipating and managing performance risk; (4) approach for employee retention; (5) attendance/participation in pre-proposal conference; and (6) qualifications.  AR, Tab 17, Revised Evaluation Criteria, at 2.  The past performance factor contained seven subfactors:  six of equal weight (client satisfaction, resource management, reasonable and cooperative behavior, quality, cost control, and schedule), and one of “double weight” (ability to recruit, manage, and administer a professional work force in the St. Louis metropolitan area).  Id. at 4.  The technical and past performance factors were of equal weight and “weighed more heavily than price.”  Id. at 1-2. The RFP stated that USDA would also evaluate offerors on price reasonableness, corporate viability and personnel, and pricing for the sample task order to arrive at a total evaluated price.  AR, Tab 17, Revised Evaluation Criteria, at 5-6.  The RFP informed offerors that USDA may reject a proposal if it is materially unbalanced (prices significantly less than cost from some work and significantly overstated for other work) or unreasonably low or high.  Id. at 1, 5.  Further, the solicitation indicated that USDA would evaluate pricing on the basis of the proposed fixed unit prices and whether the offeror has provided “competitive, fair, and reasonable pricing.”  Id.