National Disability Rights Network, Inc.

B-413528 Nov 16, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights National Disability Rights Network, Inc., (NDRN) of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Information Systems and Networks Corporation (ISN), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-16-1009, issued by the Social Security Administration for the management of the agency's representative payee program. NDRN primarily challenges the agency's evaluation of both the awardee's and the protester's own proposal, and argues that the best-value decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  National Disability Rights Network, Inc. File:  B-413528 Date:  November 16, 2016 Curtis Decker and Janice K. Johnson Hunter, Esq., for the protester. Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., and Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for Information Systems and Networks Corporation, an intervenor. Justin Coon, Esq., Uri R. Ko, Esq., Jennifer M. Siegel, Esq., and Ryan M. Warrenfeltz, Sr., Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency.  Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest is denied where the record demonstrates reasonable technical evaluation despite protester’s disagreement. 2.  Protest of past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably considered prior performance references and was not required to ignore negative information merely because positive information also existed. 3.  Protest of inadequate best value determination and improper conversion of award criteria is denied when the record demonstrates properly documented consideration of price and technical evaluations. 4.  Protest that agency failed to analyze awardee’s proposal for price realism is denied when the solicitation did not announce the intent to conduct such an evaluation. DECISION National Disability Rights Network, Inc., (NDRN) of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Information Systems and Networks Corporation (ISN), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-16-1009, issued by the Social Security Administration for the management of the agency’s representative payee program.  NDRN primarily challenges the agency’s evaluation of both the awardee’s and the protester’s own proposal, and argues that the best-value decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On December 21, 2015, the agency issued the RFP to acquire services for monitoring the management of Social Security benefits allotted to individuals with special needs, i.e., the Social Security Administration’s “Representative Payee Program.”[1]  RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 85.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single requirements contract under which fixed-price task orders would be issued to complete the required effort.  RFP at 10, 68.  The solicitation was amended twice in the course of the procurement.  The first amendment, on January 19, 2016, made minor changes to the RFP and included answers to questions from prospective offerors.  AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1.  The second amendment, issued on January 27, 2016, extended the time for receipt of proposals until February 3, 2016.[2]  AR, Tab 3, RFP amend. 2.  The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, price and non-price factors considered.  RFP at 81.  The RFP described five non-price evaluation factors which, when combined, were considered significantly more important than price.  Id. at 76.  These factors, in descending order of importance, were:  technical approach, corporate/organizational experience, management plan, key personnel qualifications and experience, and past performance.  Id. at 76-80.  As relevant here, with regard to technical approach, the RFP instructed offerors to describe their technical approach with sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the statement of work, including the major components of the SOW and all tasks and deliverables.  RFP at 70.  This factor was to be evaluated as excellent, good, fair, or poor.