InterImage, Inc. (NIHJT2016015)

B-413104.4 Nov 16, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NextGen Consulting, Inc. (NextGen), of Washington, DC, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIHJT2016015, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health for information technology supplies and services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably excluded NextGen's proposal based on the agency's misinterpretation of its contractor team arrangement (CTA) agreement. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  NextGen Consulting, Inc. File:  B-413104.4 Date:  November 16, 2016 Saif Rehman for the protester. Seeta Rebbapragada, Esq., and Erin V. Podolny, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the elimination of a proposal submitted by a competitive team arrangement offeror from competition is denied where agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s contractor team arrangement agreement did not clearly provide information required by the solicitation.   DECISION NextGen Consulting, Inc. (NextGen), of Washington, DC, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. NIHJT2016015, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health for information technology supplies and services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably excluded NextGen’s proposal based on the agency’s misinterpretation of its contractor team arrangement (CTA) agreement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Section 5112(e) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 40 U.S.C. § 11302(e), the Office of Management and Budget has designated NIH as an executive agent for government-wide IT acquisitions.  RFP at B-1.[1]  The RFP, issued on March 14, 2016, contemplated the award of up to 35 additional indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for NIH’s existing Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners small business (CIO-SP3 SB) government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC), a 10-year IDIQ contract for IT solutions and services.[2]  Id.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of fixed-price, time-and-material, or cost-reimbursement task orders during the period of performance, which corresponded with the current GWAC contracts and will end in 2022.  Id. at B-6, F-1.  The maximum potential amount established for orders under the GWAC was $20 billion, with a minimum guarantee of $250 per awardee.  Id. at B-2. The RFP contained detailed instructions regarding the submission of proposals.  As relevant here, the solicitation stated that offerors were allowed (but not required) to form contractor team arrangements (CTAs), as defined under FAR § 9.601,[3] in order to propose on the GWAC.  Id. at L-14.  In this regard, the solicitation stated that if the potential offeror forms a CTA and “wants all members of the CTA to be considered for evaluation under the GWAC, the CTA must be a CTA as defined under FAR 9.601(1) . . . and include with its proposal the information required under subpart (1) of this section, ‘Instructions regarding FAR 9.601(1) CTAs.’”  Id. By contrast, the solicitation stated that “[a]n offeror may also enter into [p]rime/[s]ubcontractor arrangements as defined under FAR 9.601(2); however, in this type of arrangement, only the prime will be considered in the evaluation for award of the GWAC.”  Id.  The solicitation also stated that “[o]fferors forming CTAs as defined under FAR 9.601(2) are not required to submit any additional documentation regarding the proposed [p]rime/[s]ubcontractor contractual relationship or the identification and/or qualifications of the proposed [s]ubcontractors.”  Id. The solicitation stated that the government “will evaluate a FAR 9.601(1) CTA provided that the offeror submits a full and complete copy of the document establishing the CTA relationship and containing at least the minimum information required by the solicitation closing date.”  Id. at L-15.  See also id. at M-2.  The solicitation further explained that no specific form or format was prescribed for the CTA documents, but listed the information that an offeror was required to provide in the CTA document.  Id. at L-15.  As relevant here, the listed information included the identity of the parties, designation of a team lead, and specific duties and responsibilities of each member of the team.  Id. The solicitation advised offerors that the government would evaluate proposals in two phases.  Id.