Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.

B-414410.3 Sep 20, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision, Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., B-414410, B-414410.2, June 6, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 199, denying its protest of the Department of the Navy's issuance of a task order to URS Federal Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, for engineering and technical support services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-17-R-3019. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. File:  B-414410.3 Date:  September 20, 2017 David B. Dixon, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Jeff Mansfield, Esq, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of our Office's decision denying a protest is denied where the decision did not contain errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification.  DECISION Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision, Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., B-414410, B-414410.2, June 6, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 199, denying its protest of the Department of the Navy's issuance of a task order to URS Federal Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, for engineering and technical support services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-17-R-3019. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The solicitation, for a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort task order, provided for award on a best-value basis, and identified five evaluation factors:  management approach (with five subfactors in the form of questions), technical capability and approach (with two subfactors), past performance, small business participation plan, and cost.  RFP at 79-80.  As relevant to this request for reconsideration, the technical capability factor was comprised of the staffing plan and technical capability question subfactors.  Id. at 80.  The staffing plan subfactor required offerors to submit a proposed staffing plan to demonstrate how the government-provided level-of-effort would be used to support all tasks in the statement of work (SOW).  Id. at 73.  The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the proposed staffing plan, including proposed key personnel and management, as indicative of the offeror's understanding of the scope of work and what is required to successfully meet the requirements of the SOW.  Id. at 80.  The RFP further provided that the management approach factor was more important than the technical capability factor, and the non-cost factors, when combined, were more important than cost.  Id. The agency received two proposals in response to the solicitation, which were evaluated as follows:     URS Epsilon Management Approach Good Acceptable   Question 1 Good Acceptable   Question 2 Good Acceptable   Question 3 Acceptable Acceptable   Question 4 Acceptable Acceptable   Question 5 Acceptable Acceptable Technical Capability Acceptable Good   Staffing Plan Marginal Good   Technical Capability Question Acceptable Good Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Small Business Participation Plan Acceptable Acceptable Total Evaluated Cost $91,341,863 $94,476,989 Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 2-4.  Following the evaluation, the source selection authority found that URS' proposal, which was rated higher overall for technical merit and offered the lowest-cost, provided the best value to the government.  Id.