Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC

B-416615.2 Oct 26, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC (RDTS), of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Strativia, LLC, of Largo, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN-18-R-0002 to provide various information technology, visual information, and administrative support services for the Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) at Oahu, Hawaii. RDTS complains that the agency failed to adhere to the terms of the solicitation and failed to treat offerors equally. 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. The entire decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC File:  B-416615.2 Date:  October 26, 2018 William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, and Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Eden Brown Gaines, Esq., Brown Gaines, LLC, for Strativia, LLC, the intervenor. Major Felix S. Mason, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the record establishes that the agency properly applied the solicitation’s stated evaluation factors, and evaluated offerors’ proposals consistently and equally against common evaluation criteria. DECISION Right Direction Technology Solutions, LLC (RDTS), of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the Department of the Army’s award of a contract to Strativia, LLC, of Largo, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN-18-R-0002 to provide various information technology, visual information, and administrative support services for the Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) at Oahu, Hawaii.[1]  RDTS complains that the agency failed to adhere to the terms of the solicitation and failed to treat offerors equally.    We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In December 2017, the agency issued the solicitation as a 100% small business set‑aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, seeking proposals that would lead to the award of a fixed-price contract for a 12‑month base period,[2] four 12‑month option periods, and one 6-month option period.[3]  RFP at 80-94, 134.[4]  The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis and established the following evaluation factors:  technical capability, past performance, and price.[5]  Id. at 106.  As amended, the solicitation also provided for a 20-day phase in period, stating:  The Contractor shall provide a detailed phase-in/out plan, which discusses the Offeror’s scheduling, phasing-in of all functional activities outlined in the PWS [performance work statement], and milestone dates for implementation.  The phase-in period shall be completed within 20 calendar days from contract award and a phase out period shall be 30 calendar days upon notice of award of a new contract in the event of any follow-on procurement. RFP at 44. Finally, the solicitation directed offerors to include pricing for the phase-in period in their prices for the base performance period.[6]  Id. at 76.  On or before the closing date, proposals were submitted by 12 offerors, including RDTS and Strativia.  RDTS’s proposal for the base performance period reflected a lower number of manhours than it proposed for the option periods on the basis that, as RDTS subsequently explained: During the transition, we anticipate that Incumbent contractor personnel currently performing the work will continue supporting the requirement prior to our Team taking full control, management and performance responsibility of the work.  This approach is specifically designed to minimize the cost impact[[7]]. . . . AR, Tab 23, RDTS Response to Discussion Questions, at 6. On May 10, the agency opened discussions with the offerors, and sent a discussion letter to RDTS that, among other things, noted that RDTS’s proposed level of effort for the base performance period appeared to be inadequate.  AR, Tab 18, RDTS Discussion Letter, at 2.  On May 16, RDTS sent an email to the agency seeking clarification of the solicitation requirements with regard to the transition/phase-in period, asking:  “will the performance of the incumbent contract continue for [the phase-in period] after contract award . .  .