DAI Global, LLC

B-416992 Jan 17, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DAI Global, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests its nonselection for award an of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-7200AA18R00008, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), for health system strengthening services. The protester argues that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in a disparate evaluation of proposals. 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: DAI Global, LLC File: B-416992 Date: January 17, 2019 Robert Nichols, Esq., Andrew Victor, Esq., Rebekah Woods, Esq., and Jason C. Lynch, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP , for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and Lauren H. Williams, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Abt Associates Inc.; James Y, Boland, Esq., and Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Venable LLP, for Palladium International, LLC; and Kayleigh Scalzo, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Evan Sherwood, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for Management Sciences for Health, Inc., intervenors. John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity is denied where the protester's interpretation of the solicitation is not reasonable. DECISION DAI Global, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests its nonselection for award an of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-7200AA18R00008, issued by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), for health system strengthening services. The protester argues that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in a disparate evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 29, 2018, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts to support USAID's Bureau for Global Health, as well as USAID missions and other bureaus, in planning and implementing health system strengthening programs with the overall goal of improving health and transitioning capacity to local partners. Agency Report (AR) Tab 6, RFP at 1, 19, 115, 116.1 The RFP stated that the agency intended to award approximately four contracts on an unrestricted basis and approximately two contracts as set-asides for small business concerns. Id. at 116. The protester submitted a proposal for consideration in the unrestricted pool and the awards at issue here relate to that pool. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of fixed-price and cost-type task orders during the five-year ordering period. Id. at 10, 36. The solicitation advised that awards would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors in descending order of importance: institutional experience and capability; technical approach; contractor past performance information (past performance); and cost/price. Id. at 130-132. The solicitation advised that the technical factors were considered significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. at 130. The agency received nine proposals, including DAI's and the four awardees, whose proposals were evaluated as follows:   Offeror A Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D DAI Institutional Experience/Capability Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Technical Approach Exceptional Exceptional Satisfactory Very Good Satisfactory Past Performance   Technical/Quality of Product or Service Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Exceptional Cost Control Very Good Satisfactory Very Good Satisfactory Very Good Schedule/Timeliness Satisfactory Very Good Very Good Satisfactory Very Good Management or Business Relations Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Small Business Subcontracting Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Satisfactory Regulatory Compliance Very Good Satisfactory Very Good Satisfactory Very Good Probable Cost $8,855,224 $8,246,989 $8,330,691 $7,926,399 $9,404,362 AR, Tab 26, DAI Post-award Debriefing Letter at 6-7; see also AR, Tab 23, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 22-23. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA) for the procurement, reviewed the results of the technical and cost evaluations and performed a tradeoff between the offerors with the four highest technically-rated proposals and those that had a lower probable cost. Id. Offerors A, B, and C were the three highest technically-rated proposals. AR, Tab 23, SSDD at 22.