HelpingGov Corporation

B-412257 Dec 15, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HelpingGov Corporation, a women-owned small business (WOSB), of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Innolect, Inc., a WOSB, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124C-15-R-TRNG, issued by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command--Fort Jackson, for leadership development training programs. HelpingGov asserts that the agency improperly found its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  HelpingGov Corporation File:  B-412257 Date:  December 15, 2015 Melany Schmidt for the protester. CPT Meghan E. Mahaney, Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s determination that the protester’s proposal is unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably found, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, that the protester’s proposal failed to meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements. DECISION HelpingGov Corporation, a women-owned small business (WOSB), of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Innolect, Inc., a WOSB, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124C-15-R-TRNG, issued by the Department of the Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command--Fort Jackson, for leadership development training programs.  HelpingGov asserts that the agency improperly found its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a WOSB set-aside on August 26, 2015, under the commercial acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6.  RFP at 1.[1]  The solicitation sought proposals for the design and delivery of leadership development training programs for the Army’s training center in Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Id. at 4.  The training programs were to include both individual training (via internet and email) and group training (via a three-day in-residence training at Fort Jackson), and were required to meet specific course content requirements set out in the solicitation’s performance work statement.  Id. at 4, 14. The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis for a base year and two 1-year option periods.  Id. at 5.  The solicitation identified two evaluation factors:  technical capability and price.  Id. at 79.  The technical capability evaluation factor was composed of two subfactors:  management approach and experience.  Id. at 79-80. As relevant here, the solicitation required offerors to provide a lesson plan that outlines the course requirements under the management approach subfactor.  Id. at 79.  Offerors were further informed that the government would evaluate the proposed course material “to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements as outlined in the PWS [Performance Work Statement].”  Id. at 79-80.  The PWS provided that, “[a]t a minimum the course content shall address” such items as “One on One feedback coaching,” “Creativity and Innovation,” and “Leading change within an organization,” among other things.  Id. at 14.  Proposals that failed to meet the minimum requirements would be found technically unacceptable.  Id. at 79. Proposal preparation instructions directed offerors to respond separately to each evaluation factor.  Id. at 75.  In this regard, offerors were cautioned not to simply rephrase or restate the government’s requirements in their technical volume, but to “provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the Government’s requirements.”  Id.