Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC

B-414366.2 Jun 13, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC (RDTS), of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to SciTech Services, Inc., of Havre de Grace, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911NF-16-R-0020, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program management and technical support services. The protester alleges that the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of its own and the awardee's proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC File:  B-414366.2 Date:  June 13, 2017 Jerry Alfonso Miles, Esq., Angeline R. Burke, Esq., and Christine Funk. Esq., Deale Services, LLC, for the protester. Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Wright, Constable, & Skeen, LLP, for SciTech Services, Inc, the intervenor. Erica A. Harder Smith, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC (RDTS), of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to SciTech Services, Inc., of Havre de Grace, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911NF-16-R-0020, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program management and technical support services.  The protester alleges that the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of its own and the awardee’s proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on September 26, 2016, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, as a set‑aside for small business concerns to provide support for the Army’s SBIR/STTR program management office in the form of program management and technical services that assist the government’s in‑house efforts and expertise.  RFP at 11, 64.  The RFP anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options.  Id. at 9.  The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering five evaluation factors:  (1) technical; (2) management and quality assurance plan; (3) transition and business planning development; (4) past performance; and (5) cost.  Id. at 71-72.  The technical; management and quality assurance plan; and, transition and business planning development evaluation factors were of equal importance, and each factor was more important than the past performance evaluation factor, which was more important than cost.  Id. at 71. The RFP stated that proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under the technical; management and quality assurance plan; and, transition and business planning development evaluation factors.[1]  Id.  In order to be eligible for an award, an offeror had to receive no less than a “good” rating under each of these three factors.  Id. at 75.  Consequently, a rating of acceptable (or below) under these evaluation factors rendered a proposal technically unacceptable.  The fourth evaluation factor, past performance, would be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality.[2]  Id. at 73.  With regard to the technical evaluation factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate, among other things, the education and experience of the offeror’s proposed project team.[3]  Id.  For the team, offerors were to submit the names and individual qualifications of each proposed key personnel.  RFP at 68.  The RFP identified 13 key personnel positions:  a team leader/project manager, a technical assistance advocate (TAA) team lead, nine TAAs, a financial management specialist, and a junior programmer/database manager.[4]  Id. at 9, 22-23.  Each of the key personnel was required to have certain specific credentials.  Id. at  22-23.  As relevant to this protest, the team leader/project manager was required to have “6 years of relevant, recent experience in program management and personnel management.”  Id. at 22.  In addition, the TAAs were required to be “senior technical analysts” and were required to hold an advanced technical degree.  Id.