Systems Kinetics Integration, Inc.

B-416350 Aug 10, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Systems Kinetics Integration, Inc. (SYSKIN), of Marstons Mills, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to MDB Group LLC, of Lorton, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-17-R-0030, issued by the Department of the Army for technical, analytical, and financial services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its key personnel and the agency's source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Systems Kinetics Integration, Inc. File:  B-416350 Date:  August 10, 2018 E. A. Dever Jr., for the protester. Tamiesha C. Robinson‑Asbery, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably found the protester’s key personnel did not meet the solicitation’s minimum qualification requirements. DECISION Systems Kinetics Integration, Inc. (SYSKIN), of Marstons Mills, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to MDB Group LLC, of Lorton, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB‑17‑R-0030, issued by the Department of the Army for technical, analytical, and financial services.  The protester challenges the evaluation of its key personnel and the agency’s source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued by the Army Contracting Command‑Aberdeen Proving Ground pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 and set aside for service‑disabled veteran‑owned small businesses.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, RFP, at 1, 47, 90.[1]  The RFP included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) requiring the contractor to provide a broad range of subject matter expertise, analysis, and programmatic support services for the Force Development Directorate of the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G‑8 (G‑8/FD).  See RFP § C, PWS, §§ 1.0‑1.3.  The solicitation provided for the award of a time‑and‑materials contract (for a base year and two 1‑year option periods) on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering five evaluation factors:  technical approach; personnel qualifications; management approach; past performance; and price.[2]  RFP at 58, 90, 93.  Offerors were to submit separate proposal volumes corresponding to each evaluation factor.  Id. at 82. With respect to the personnel qualifications factor, of relevance here, offerors were to propose various key personnel as specified in the PWS and the RFP’s workload data, including a number of senior analysts and senior “operations research systems analysts” (ORSA).  Id. at 85‑86; PWS § 2.2; AR, Tab 8, RFP attach. 4, Workload Data.  Offerors were to provide a letter of intent for each of their key personnel, as well as a resume describing the individual’s education, experience, relevant skills, qualifications (as specified in the PWS), and proposed PWS billet (i.e., position associated with particular PWS tasks), among other things.  RFP at 85‑86.  Offerors were also to submit a staffing matrix listing all proposed personnel (both key and non‑key), their security clearance level, proposed labor category, etc.  Id.  The RFP stated that an offeror’s proposal, including resumes, should satisfy all of the agency’s requirements, provide extensive detail indicating the offeror’s thorough understanding of the personnel requirements, and propose candidates with significant strengths that presented an overall low degree of risk in meeting the requirements.  See id. at 92. The Army received proposals from three offerors, including SYSKIN and MDB (the incumbent).  Contracting Officer’s Statement & Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 8; see AR, Tab 10, RFP Questions & Answers, No. 29.  A technical evaluation team (TET) assessed offerors’ technical proposals and past performance.  See AR, Tab 33, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 5.  Following the TET’s initial evaluation, the contracting officer determined that discussions were necessary and established a competitive range consisting of SYSKIN and MDB.  Id.