Skyline Ultd, Inc.

B-416101 Jun 11, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Skyline Ultd, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order (TO) to Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-18-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-New Jersey, for family assistance center (FAC) services. The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency's technical and price evaluations. 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:  Skyline Ultd, Inc. File:  B-416101 Date:  June 11, 2018 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Janice Davis, Esq., and Damon Martin, Esq., Davis & Steele, for Strategic Resources, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Kenneth C. Gilliland, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. DECISION Skyline Ultd, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order (TO) to Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-18-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-New Jersey, for family assistance center (FAC) services.  The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency's technical and price evaluations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on January 8, 2018, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16, limited competition to current holders of the Army's Human Resource Solutions Personnel Services and Support Mission Area multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 1.  The RFP sought proposals for the issuance of a fixed-price task order--with cost reimbursement of other direct costs (ODC), including travel--to the vendor whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical and price, with technical more important than price.  Id.; AR, Tab 6, Basis for Award, at 1.  The TO would have a base period of 11.5 months, including 15 days for phase-in, one 12-month option period, and one 8-month option period.  AR, Tab 6, Basis for Award, at 1.  The technical factor consisted of the following three areas, which were not subfactors and would not be separately weighted:  staffing approach, technical approach, and management process and quality control.  Id. at 3-4.  Under management process and quality control, offerors' proposals were required to "provide clearly defined management and organization processes and procedures, and quality control metrics that ensure that the Offeror can meet the stated performance objectives of the Task Order."  Id. at 4.  The contractor was also required to address "timely identification and resolution of issues; and their intended inspection methodology to validate this approach and include their approach for inspection if the Task Order includes multiple locations."  Id.  The total evaluated price for the task order would consist of the base and option period line item amounts, including the government-provided ODC amounts.  Id. at 5. The agency advised offerors that technical proposals would be evaluated against three criteria:  understanding of the requirements, completeness/adequacy of response, and feasibility of approach.  Id. at 5-6.  The agency would assign the technical factor a color/adjectival rating ranging from blue/outstanding to red/unacceptable.  Id. at 6-7.  The following ratings are relevant to this protest:  purple/good--proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate; and green/acceptable--proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.  Id.  The RFP advised offerors that the "consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance."  Id.