Data Matrix Solutions, Inc.

B-412520 Mar 14, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Data Matrix Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Survice Engineering Company, of Dumfries, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QX-15-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for professional scientific, engineering and technical assistance support to various Army research laboratories throughout the United States. Data Matrix alleges that the agency improperly found its proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award, based on deficiencies identified under one technical subfactor; that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions with Data Matrix; and that the agency's evaluation was tainted by bias. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Data Matrix Solutions, Inc. File:  B-412520 Date:  March 14, 2016 Mario Gonzales for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 1.  Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of a protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal failed to comply with mandatory requirements for key personnel. 2.  Protest that an agency improperly failed to conduct discussions is denied where award without discussions was contemplated by the solicitation and at least one technically acceptable proposal was received. 3.  Protest alleging bias on the part of an agency evaluator is denied where protester does not support its allegations with convincing proof, and the record does not otherwise reflect bias. DECISION Data Matrix Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to  Survice Engineering Company, of Dumfries, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QX-15-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for professional scientific, engineering and technical assistance support to various Army research laboratories throughout the United States.  Data Matrix alleges that the agency improperly found its proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award, based on deficiencies identified under one technical subfactor; that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions with Data Matrix; and that the agency’s evaluation was tainted by bias. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 8, 2015, was set aside for small business concerns (under North American Industry Classification System 541712-R&D in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences) for the provision of a broad range of professional scientific, engineering and technical assistance support to various Army research laboratories throughout the United States.  RFP at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract under which task orders could be issued for a period of 3 years, with a total ceiling amount of $49,855,123.57.  Id.  Included in the RFP was a basic performance work statement (PWS) for all possible task orders as well as a PWS for the initial task order.  Id. Proposals were to be evaluated and awards made without discussions, although the RFP provided for establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions if necessary.  RFP at 2.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering the following factors in descending order of importance:  technical, past performance, and cost.  Id. at 136‑37.  The RFP stated that in order to be eligible for award, a technical proposal was required to have received an adjectival rating of no less than acceptable, “to include all subfactors,” and a past performance rating of at least satisfactory confidence.  Id. at 136. The technical factor included three subfactors, also listed in descending order of importance:  personnel, management approach, and understanding of the work to be accomplished.  Id. at 137.  In addition, each of the subfactors included various evaluation elements.  As relevant here, the personnel subfactor identified four elements:  recruitment plan, retention plan, recentness of experience, and availability.[1]  As also relevant here, the recentness of experience element required that proposed personnel, including key personnel, have the current knowledge, skills, certification, education, and experience in the technical disciplines required by the basic PWS and the first task order PWS.  Id.