Summit Group, LLC

B-412499 Mar 03, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Summit Group, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, protests the exclusion of its protest from the competitive range by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-15-R-0006 for integrated commercial intrusion detection systems. Summit argues that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal resulting in its improper exclusion from the competitive range. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Summit Group, LLC File:  B-412499 Date:  March 3, 2016 Michael Johnson, Summit Group, LLC, for the protester. Fadette Berthold, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging a contracting agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal and exclusion of the proposal from the competitive range is denied where the agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation criteria.  DECISION Summit Group, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, protests the exclusion of its protest from the competitive range by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-15-R-0006 for integrated commercial intrusion detection systems.[1]  Summit argues that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal resulting in its improper exclusion from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2015, the Army published the RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed‑price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 2-year base period and four 1-year options, as well as a potential 6-month extension to the final optional ordering period in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217‑8.  RFP at 151.  The solicitation provided for award on a best‑value basis and established the following three evaluation factors, which were listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical, (2) price, and (3) past performance.  The technical factor included five subfactors:  system design (subfactor 1.1), system installation (subfactor 1.2), system demonstration (subfactor 1.3), system supportability (subfactor 1.4), and management of resources (subfactor 1.5).  Id. at 206.  The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. at 215. The solicitation provided that an unacceptable rating under the technical factor would render a proposal unacceptable, and that an unacceptable rating under one of the five technical subfactors could result in an unacceptable rating for that factor.  Id. at 214.  Relevant to this protest, the management of resources subfactor of the technical evaluation factor required offerors to submit a list of seven key personnel positions, including that of the information assurance (IA) manager, and stated that key personnel are “considered to be critical to the successful performance of this contract.”  Id. at 162.  The solicitation also stated the following regarding proposed key personnel: 1.5.2.  The Offeror shall submit listing of proposed Key Personnel, see Section H, paragraph 15.  For each Key Personnel, describe certifications, accreditations and pertinent work experience related to this effort.  The Offeror shall include experience in execution of tasks for multiple and diverse organizations and discuss rationale for proposing Key Personnel.  Submissions shall contain (LIMIT: TWO PAGES PER INDIVIDUAL): NAME PROPOSED ROLE/POSITION SECURITY CLEARANCE AND DATE GRANTED APPLICABLE ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS PERTINENT EXPERIENCE Id. at 218.  The RFP further explained that the “standard” for evaluating offerors’ proposed key personnel was as follows:  “STANDARD:  The Offeror proposed qualified and key personnel to ensure program efficiency and continuity.”  Id. Regarding the IA manager key personnel position, the RFP stated the following:  For Information Assurance (IA)/Information Technology (IT) Certification Per DoD 8570.01-M , DFARS 252.239-7001 and AR 25-2, the Contractor employees supporting IA/IT functions shall be appropriately certified upon contract award. IA Workforce employees shall be certified IAT Level I and IA Managers shall be certified IAT Level II in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M, Appendix 3 and Table AP3.T2 DoD Approved Baseline Certifications as shown at: http://iase.disa.mil/iawip/Pages/iabaseline.aspx. Id.