CAMRIS International, Inc.

B-416561 Aug 14, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CAMRIS International, Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to Kelly Services, Inc., of Troy, Michigan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHS-NIH-NIDA-SOL-2018-231, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), for scientific, technical, and other professional support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of the proposals and selection decision. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  CAMRIS International, Inc. File:  B-416561 Date:  August 14, 2018 Bryan T. Bunting, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, for the protester. Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Scott F. Lane, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Kelly Services, Inc., the intervenor. Christine Simpson, Esq., and Anthony E. Marrone, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of proposals and the ensuing selection decision is dismissed where protester’s allegations, which are based on speculation, do not establish a valid basis of protest and are legally insufficient. DECISION CAMRIS International, Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to Kelly Services, Inc., of Troy, Michigan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHS‑NIH-NIDA-SOL-2018-231, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), for scientific, technical, and other professional support services.  The protester challenges the evaluation of the proposals and selection decision. We dismiss the protest. The solicitation, issued on January 9, 2018, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 15 and 16, contemplated the award of a fixed-priced, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract with reimbursable travel costs, for a three-year period of performance.  Solicitation at 1, 58, 59, 62.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors in descending order of importance:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 91.  The technical factors were comprised of the following factors:  technical capability, management approach, and financial capability.  Id. at 91-92.  The solicitation advised that the technical capability factor was the most important factor and was assigned the weight of 40 points for evaluation purposes.  Id. at 91.  The management approach and financial capability factors were of equal importance and were each assigned the weight of 30 points for evaluation purposes.  Id. at 92.  The solicitation advised that the non‑price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. As relevant here, the solicitation advised that under the technical capability factor, the agency would assess the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the capability to provide services in four task areas.[1]  Id. at 91.  The solicitation also stated that the offeror was to demonstrate the ability to recruit, retain, and replace a broad array of different types of professionals.  Id.  Finally, the solicitation advised that the agency would also assess the benefits package provided to employees, subcontractors, and/or consultants.  Id. For the past performance factor, the agency advised that past performance would be rated as excellent (+2), good (+1), none (0), marginal (-1), or poor (-2).  Id. at 93-94.  As relevant here, the excellent rating was defined as “[b]ased on the offeror’s performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.  Sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror’s performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again.”  Id. at 93.  The agency received four proposals, including those from CAMRIS and Kelly Services.  Protest, exh. 3, Award Notice.  On July 2, 2018, CAMRIS was notified that the agency had made award to Kelly Services.  Id.  The same day CAMRIS requested a debriefing and, on July 3, was provided a written debriefing.  Protest, exh. 4a, Debriefing Transmittal; exh. 4b, Debriefing Letter; exh.