Target Media Mid Atlantic, Inc.

B-412468 Feb 16, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DataSource, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-3125, issued by the Department of the Navy for operations support and sustainment services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated DataSource's proposal as non-compliant with the RFP requirements and as a result unreasonably excluded the proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  DataSource, Inc. File:  B-412468 Date:  February 16, 2016 Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Michelle S. Bennett, Esq., and Aleacia Chinkhota, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation as unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation criteria. DECISION DataSource, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-3125, issued by the Department of the Navy for operations support and sustainment services.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated DataSource’s proposal as non-compliant with the RFP requirements and as a result unreasonably excluded the proposal from the competition.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued to holders of the SeaPort-e Multiple Award Contract (MAC), Zone 2, and set aside for small businesses, contemplated the issuance of a cost‑plus incentive fee task order,[1] with a 12 month base period and four 1-year options, to the firm whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering three evaluation factors:  technical capability, including subfactors (in descending order of importance) for technical knowledge and capability,  management approach, and staffing approach; past performance; and total evaluated cost.  RFP at 28, 65, 82, 84.  Technical capability was more important than past performance, and, when combined, the two technical factors were significantly more important than total evaluated cost.  Id. The RFP advised offerors that “[l]etters of intent shall be provided for all key personnel not currently employed by the prime or proposed subcontractor, demonstrating their agreed upon start date in accordance with the requirements in Attachment 07 in the key personnel sheet.”  RFP at 72.  Likewise, the solicitation also stated that:  For any key personnel that is not a current employee of the offeror or one of its subcontractors, a letter of intent or contingent hire letter as required under Section L Paragraph 4.1.3.1 will be sufficient so long as it includes the key personnel’s agreed upon salary and direct-labor hourly rate. RFP at 77.  The RFP further advised offerors that “in order to be eligible for award” a “proposal shall meet all solicitation requirements.”  Id. at 83.  In addition, the solicitation indicated that the agency intended to award a task order on the basis of initial proposals.  RFP at 64. DataSource submitted a proposal that was evaluated as unacceptable for failure to include a letter of intent for a proposed task order project manager, one of the 29 key personnel specified in the solicitation.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. A, Proposal Review for DataSource, at 2; see RFP, Attach. J-6.  The agency notified the protester that its proposal had been eliminated from further consideration, and this protest followed. DISCUSSION DataSource argues that the requirement to submit letters of intent for key personnel not currently employed by the prime or proposed subcontractors was not a material requirement of the RFP such that a failure to submit one of the letters of intent would render the proposal unacceptable.  Protest at 8-9.  The protester notes in this regard that a failure to submit letters of intent was not included among the solicitation requirements specifically described as “a material requirement of this contract.”  RFP at 28 (access to proprietary data or computer software, and non‑disclosure requirement), 34 (organizational conflict of interest, and access to proprietary data or computer software).  The agency maintains that the requirement for letters of intent for key personnel was an essential, material requirement.  AR at 5. In negotiated procurements, a proposal that fails to conform to the material requirements and conditions of the solicitation should be considered unacceptable. Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013, B-287013.2, Mar.