MT & H Systems, LLC

B-412380 Jan 28, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RELI Group, Inc., of Catonsville, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract and an initial task order to DSFederal, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15-223-SOL-00089, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The RFP sought operations and maintenance (O&M) and development modernization and enhancement (DME) support for an FDA portal for reporting problems associated with products that are regulated by the FDA. The protester alleges that the FDA evaluated its proposal in a manner that was inconsistent with the RFP. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  RELI Group, Inc. File:  B-412380 Date:  January 28, 2016 John R. Prairie, Esq., Craig Smith, Esq., and Cara L. Lasley, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Laura J. Mitchell Baker, Esq., and David Robbins, Esq., Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, for DSFederal, Inc., an intervenor. Richard G. Bergeron, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of offerors’ relevant experience submissions is sustained where solicitation language concerning relevant experience evaluation factor created a latent ambiguity that prevented offerors from competing intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. DECISION RELI Group, Inc., of Catonsville, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract and an initial task order to DSFederal, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15-223-SOL-00089, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The RFP sought operations and maintenance (O&M) and development modernization and enhancement (DME) support for an FDA portal for reporting problems associated with products that are regulated by the FDA.  The protester alleges that the FDA evaluated its proposal in a manner that was inconsistent with the RFP. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The FDA issued the RFP on July 23, 2015, as a small business set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program.  RFP at 1.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of a single ID/IQ contract with a $20 million ceiling over a 5-year ordering period, and the concurrent award of a fixed‑price task order.  RFP at 5.  In general terms, the RFP sought application life cycle management support and continuity of services, including O&M and DME support, for FDA’s safety-reporting portal, which allows the FDA to receive reports of adverse events or problems associated with FDA-regulated products.  RFP at 58-59. The RFP provided that award would be made in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, and FAR Parts 12 and 15, on a best-value basis, considering the following technical factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical understanding and approach to the task order, management approach to the ID/IQ, and relevant experience.  Id. at 46.  The technical factors, when combined, were considered to be significantly more important than price.  Id.  Past performance was also to be considered in the assessment of risk, but not as a weighted technical evaluation factor.[2]  Id. As relevant to the protest allegation at issue here, the RFP directed offerors to submit information about their relevant experience as follows: The offeror shall provide information about three (3) projects . . . . The offeror shall describe its current and past experience  . . . including its degree of involvement (at least 2 out of the 3 projects the offeror must be the prime) . . .