CompQSoft, Inc.

B-414426 Jun 12, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CompQsoft, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to InSap Services, Inc., of Marlton, New Jersey, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. UNAWRD-16-R-SUST, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, for Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program Hub application sustainment. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision. 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:  CompQsoft, Inc File:  B-414426 Date:  June 12, 2017 Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Candace M. Shields, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for InSap Services, Inc., the intervenor. Erica A. Harder-Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's challenge of the evaluation of its proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CompQsoft, Inc., of Houston, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to InSap Services, Inc., of Marlton, New Jersey, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. UNAWRD-16-R-SUST, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, for Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program Hub application sustainment.  The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFTOP was issued on October 21, 2016, to Army Enterprise Resource Planning Services Small Business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract holders, and contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods.[1]  Agency Report (AR) at 1.  The order was to be issued on a best-value basis, considering technical approach and price factors.  AR, Tab 6, Instructions for Proposal Submission and Evaluation Criteria, at 10-11.  The RFTOP provided that the technical approach factor was significantly more important than the price factor, and advised that an offeror must receive a rating of no less than acceptable under the technical approach factor in order to be considered for award.  Id.  at 9, 11. As relevant here, under the technical approach factor, the RFTOP required offerors to provide a complete and detailed description of their approaches to supporting the performance work statement (PWS).  Id. at 2.  At a minimum, offerors were to:  (1) provide key personnel resumes and a resource list that demonstrate the ability to meet requirements in section 4.1 of the PWS; and (2) demonstrate the ability to staff a complete and qualified team with certain qualifications and availability based on the resource list.[2]  Id.  Prior to the time for submission of proposals, the agency engaged in three rounds of questions and answers with potential offerors.  AR at 3.  Subsequently, the agency received ten timely proposals in response to the RFTOP, and the proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET) and a pricing team.  Id.  The TET assigned two significant weaknesses and one weakness to CompQsoft's proposal under the technical approach factor, which resulted in an overall technical approach rating of marginal.  Id.  The results of the evaluation, for the protester and the awardee, were as follows: CompQsoft, Inc. InSap Services, Inc. Technical Approach Marginal Good Price $30,083,624 $38,563,772 AR, at 4.[3] The Task Order Determining Official (TODO), concurred with the TET's findings and ratings, and determined InSap's proposal to be the best value.  AR, Tab 18, Task Order Decision Document (TODD), at 22.  The agency informed CompQsoft that it was the unsuccessful offeror on February 17, 2017, and provided both written and oral debriefings, that concluded on February 24.  AR at 4.  This protest followed on March 6. DISCUSSION  CompQsoft challenges the agency's assignment of two significant weaknesses, one weakness, and no strengths to its proposal, and contends that, had the agency properly evaluated its proposal, the proposal would have represented the best value to the government.  While we only address the protester's principal contentions in this decision, we have considered all of the protester's arguments and conclude that none provide a basis to sustain the protest.[4] The evaluation of offerors' technical proposals, includin...