BICALLIS, LLC

B-415639 Feb 01, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bicallis, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ-17-R-0009, issued by the Department of State, Foreign Service Institute (FSI), for the provision of professional services at FSI locations, including the National Foreign Affairs Training Center. The protester, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal. 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:  BICALLIS, LLC File:  B-415639 Date:  February 1, 2018 Bryan T. Bunting, Esq., and A. Ari Ghosal, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, for the protester. Jon W. van Horne, Esq., Law Office of Jon W. van Horne, for Daniel Eke and Associates, PC, the intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly rejected the protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the protester's proposal failed to conform to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation. DECISION Bicallis, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ-17-R-0009, issued by the Department of State, Foreign Service Institute (FSI), for the provision of professional services at FSI locations, including the National Foreign Affairs Training Center.  The protester, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal.   We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 20, 2017, as a total set-aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone concerns, contemplated the award of a contract, for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options, for professional services at multiple FSI locations.  RFP at 7-8.  The solicitation included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.212-2, "Evaluation--Commercial Items," which indicated that award was to be made to the firm whose quotation was most advantageous to the government, considering price and non-price factors.[1]  RFP, at 86. The non-price factors, quality (technical) and past performance, when combined, were deemed more important than price.  RFP at 88. The quality (technical) factor was divided into three subfactors:  personnel qualifications, understanding and approach, and subcontractor management plan, if applicable.  RFP at 90.  Under the personnel qualifications subfactor, the RFP stated that proposals must include "sample resumes of qualified individuals for each of the three labor categories/positions," which were senior procurement analyst, human resources (HR) classification specialist, and HR employee relations specialist.  RFP at 89.  The RFP then specified that the "[g]overnment expects 2 resumes total," i.e., two resumes for each of the three positions, for a total of six resumes.  Id.  Additionally, and at issue here, the RFP stated:  "[t]he offeror shall submit letters of commitment from proposed candidates."  Id. The agency received 19 proposals in response to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 5.  Of the proposals received, 10 proposals, including that of Bicallis, were found non-compliant with the terms of the solicitation and were excluded from the competition.  Id.  The agency found Bicallis's proposal non-compliant, and illegible for award, because the firm failed to provide six letters of commitment for all six candidates it proposed.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Notification of Exclusion from Competition.  In this regard, while Bicallis submitted six resumes, the firm submitted only 3 letters of commitment along with those resumes.  AR, Tab 5, Protester's Proposal.  On September 25, the agency made award to Daniel Eke and Associates for $4,574,190.40, as the firm whose proposal was most advantageous to the government.  AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision, at 31, 34.[2]  On September 27, Bicallis filed an agency-level protest alleging that the RFP did not require letters of commitment for all proposed candidates, but only for candidates that were not currently employed by the offeror.  AR, Tab 10, Agency-Level Protest, at 6-8.