Universal Consulting Services, Inc.

B-415217.4 Aug 27, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Universal Consulting Services, Inc. (UCS), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Zolon Tech, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. CSE-17-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), for information management, information technology, and related support services for various agency programs. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of technical 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:  Universal Consulting Services, Inc. File:  B-415217.4 Date:  August 27, 2018 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Megan C. Connor, Esq., Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq., Patrick R. Rothwell, Esq., and Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., William T. Welch, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for Zolon Tech, Inc., the intervenor. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., and Major Bruce H. Robinson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the reasonableness of an agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated proposals consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Universal Consulting Services, Inc. (UCS), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Zolon Tech, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. CSE-17-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), for information management, information technology, and related support services for various agency programs.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The procurement was limited to firms holding a Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 Small Business Governmentwide Acquisition Contract administered by the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP amend. 3, Conformed RFP at 1.  The RFP sought proposals for the issuance of a single fixed-price task order, with a transition period of approximately 2 months, a 4-month base period, and five 1-year options.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of the order to the firm whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical approach, experience, management approach, quality control approach, past performance, and price.  Id. at 1, 23.  The non-price factors were more important than price.  Id. at 23.  Price was to be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.  Id. at 28. For all non-price evaluation factors other than past performance, the agency was to assign an adjectival rating of unacceptable, marginal, acceptable, good, or outstanding.  RFP at 29.  The following definitions are relevant to this protest:  an acceptable proposal “meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.  Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate”; a good proposal “meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.  Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is low”; and an outstanding proposal “meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.  Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.”  Id. The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated for deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths.  Id.