Dev Technology Group

B-412163.2 Jan 04, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sapient Government Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Sevatec, Incorporated, of Fairfax, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSCCG-15-R-00003 issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for Agile development and maintenance services to support agency information technology (IT) systems. Sapient alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, the agency conducted discussions with the firm that were not meaningful, and the agency's best-value decision was flawed. 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:  Sapient Government Services, Inc. File:  B-412163.2 Date:  January 4, 2016 Carol L. O’Riordan, Esq., Anthony J. Marchese, Esq., and Taimur Rabbani, Esq., O’Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP, for the protester. Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., Albo & Oblon, L.L.P., for Sevatec, Incorporated, and David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., and Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for Vencore Services and Solutions, Inc., the intervenors. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 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 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s oral presentation is denied where record reflects evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that agency conducted nonmeaningful discussions with protester is denied where record reflects protester never was afforded the opportunity to revise, and in fact never revised, its proposal, and, therefore, discussions did not occur. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s best-value determination is denied where record reflects protester’s proposal was evaluated as being higher-priced and lower‑technically-rated than other proposals, and protester fails to show the underlying evaluation ratings were unreasonable. DECISION Sapient Government Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Sevatec, Incorporated, of Fairfax, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSCCG-15-R-00003 issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for Agile development and maintenance services to support agency information technology (IT) systems.  Sapient alleges that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, the agency conducted discussions with the firm that were not meaningful, and the agency’s best-value decision was flawed. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND On February 17, 2015, the agency issued the solicitation under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to firms holding contracts under functional category 1 (service delivery) of an existing multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract vehicle known as the second-generation Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading-Edge Solutions (EAGLE II).[2]  See RFP at 1.[3]  The solicitation sought services to support the agency’s joint engineering teams--sustainment (JETS) program.  See id.  The solicitation included a performance work statement (PWS) specifying, at the highest level, that the JETS contractors would be responsible for providing “high-productivity Agile development services and Lean processes focused on IT sustainment of applications that support [the agency’s] core business areas.”  PWS § 3. The solicitation anticipated the award of four fixed-price[4] task orders, each with a six‑month base period and four one-year option periods.  RFP at 2-9, 19.  The task orders were for work in four mission-area “portfolios.”  The portfolios were records, benefits, customer service, and biometrics.[5]  Id.  This protest concerns only the customer service portfolio. Each award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and the following four equally-weighted nonprice factors:  corporate experience of the prime contractor; technical approach of the contractor team; management approach of the contractor team; and oral presentation.  RFP at 19-20.  The solicitation stated that the nonprice factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. at 19.  Additionally, the solicitation included evaluation criteria for each nonprice factor, and stated that under these factors, the agency would assign adjectival ratings of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.  Id.