Immersion Consulting, LLC

B-415155.3 Mar 06, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA), requests reconsideration of our decision, Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-415155, B-415155.2, Dec. 4, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 373, in which we sustained a protest by Immersion Consulting, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, challenging the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order to NetImpact Strategies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1186423, issued by DHRA for program management support services. DHRA argues that our decision contains errors of law and fact that merit reconsideration. We deny the request. We deny the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  Department of Defense--Reconsideration File:  B-415155.3 Date:  March 6, 2018 Hattie Russell DuBois, Esq., and William C. Moorhouse, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's request for reconsideration of a prior decision is denied where request does not show the decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification. DECISION The Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA), requests reconsideration of our decision, Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-415155, B-415155.2, Dec. 4, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 373, in which we sustained a protest by Immersion Consulting, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, challenging the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order to NetImpact Strategies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals[1] (RFP) No. 1186423, issued by DHRA for program management support services.  DHRA argues that our decision contains errors of law and fact that merit reconsideration.  We deny the request.  The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside competition under FSS No. 874-4, anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price task order.  Quotations were to be evaluated under three factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFP at 1 & attach. 3, Evaluation Factors, Criteria, and Rating Methods, at 23-27.  The technical factor had three subfactors:  technical approach and methodology, project management plan, and staffing plan.  Id. at 24-25.  Under the technical approach and methodology subfactor, the RFP directed vendors to demonstrate understanding of the requirement, explain the offeror's assessment of the objectives to be accomplished, and present a methodology for "accomplishing the required contract performance," including how to "satisfy the performance requirements" and "solutions for any assessed performance challenges."  Id. at 24.  Under the program management plan subfactor, vendors were to describe an "approach for providing complete program management support that w[ould] fully integrate, manage, control, and document all phases" of the requirements, describe project management and quality control, demonstrate an approach for providing necessary corporate resources, and set forth a detailed plan for transition including personnel, schedule, and communication strategy.  Id. at 25.  Under the staffing plan subfactor, the RFP instructed vendors to provide a staffing plan to support the technical approach through identifying labor categories, experienced and skilled personnel, labor hours, and a crosswalk to the requirements.  Id.  In response to Immersion's protest, our review of the record showed that the source selection authority's (SSA) selection of NetImpact's lower-priced quotation was based on the SSA's view that the two quotations were technically equal.  Our decision concluded that the SSA's judgment was not supported by the underlying record and was thus unreasonable.  In particular, the SSA's rationale for removing the weaknesses assessed by the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) in evaluating NetImpact's quotation was not meaningfully explained in the record.  Immersion Consulting, LLC, supra, at 5.  Accordingly, we sustained the protest and recommended that DHRA reevaluate the quotations under the technical factor reasonably, document an evaluation that was consistent with the solicitation and our decision, prepare a new source selection decision, and reimburse the protester's costs associated with filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.[2]  Id.