GeoSystems Analysis, Inc.

B-413016 Jul 25, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Sound Science LLC, of Boise, Idaho, by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. R16PS00088 for scientific, technical, and peer review services in support of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. GeoSystems alleges that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal and past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  GeoSystems Analysis, Inc. File:  B-413016 Date:  July 25, 2016 Michael Milczarek, GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., for the protester. Craig T. Donovan, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the record reflects that any errors in the agency’s evaluation did not competitively prejudice the protester. DECISION GeoSystems Analysis, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Sound Science LLC, of Boise, Idaho, by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. R16PS00088 for scientific, technical, and peer review services in support of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.  GeoSystems alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal and past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on December 15, 2015 as a total small business set-aside, and amended once, contemplated the award of a fixed-rate, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with five one-year ordering periods.[1]  RFP at B-1, C-2.  The solicitation included a performance work statement (PWS) outlining various scientific, technical, and peer review tasks that the successful offeror would be required to perform; under each PWS task, descriptions of subtasks were provided.  PWS at 1-3.  As relevant here, one of the PWS tasks pertained to adaptive management.  Id. at 3. The solicitation provided that the award would be made based on consideration of the following four factors:  experience of company and key personnel; technical approach; past performance; and price.  RFP at E-11.  The three nonprice factors were stated to be of equal importance and, when combined, significantly more important than price.  Id. The solicitation included proposal preparation instructions describing what the proposals must include under each evaluation factor.  RFP at E-7 to E-11.  As relevant here, under the technical approach factor, the solicitation instructed that proposals must include “a complete and detailed description of the [offeror’s] technical approach . . . to complete the work required in the solicitation.”  Id. at E-9.  The solicitation further instructed that this description must include: detailed explanations of proposed approaches to performing and accomplishing the work, including preliminary design and other information indicating configuration and functions of components as applicable, and a specific outline of the actual tasks proposed to be performed in order to complete the work. Id.  The solicitation specified that this section of the proposal must not exceed 15 pages.  Id. As also relevant here, under the past performance factor, the solicitation instructed that offerors must “demonstrate satisfactory performance on more than three (3) projects where the work performed was similar in complexity and scope” to the work under the PWS.  RFP, Amend. No. 000001, at E-10.  This section of the solicitation also required offerors to provide contact information for their past performance references, and it stated that the agency would contact the references “to document critical elements of past performance.”  Id. In response to the solicitation, the agency received proposals from two offerors--GeoSystems and Sound Science.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 14, Determination of Award, at 2.  A technical proposal evaluation committee (TPEC) evaluated the proposals and assessed strengths, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks under the nonprice factors.  AR, Tab 12, TPEC Mem., at 2-4.  The TPEC also assigned adjectival ratings under the nonprice factors, as well as overall proposal ratings.[2]  Id.