Adams and Associates, Inc.

B-417120.2 Jun 25, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Adams and Associates, Inc., of Reno, Nevada, protests the award of a contract to Management & Training Corporation (MTC), of Centerville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1630J5-17-R-00003, which was issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), for the operation of the Atterbury Job Corps Center in Edinburgh, Indiana, and the Indypendence Career Development Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Adams alleges that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency for Adams' phase-out plan, and unreasonably evaluated offerors' past performance. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Adams and Associates, Inc. File: B-417120.2 Date: June 25, 2019 Katie A. Calogero, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Bryce D. Chadwick, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Alex P. Hontos, Esq., and Daniel Falknor, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, for Management & Training Corporation, the intervenor. Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Dennis A. Adelson, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the assessment of a deficiency for failure to meet a material solicitation requirement. DECISION Adams and Associates, Inc., of Reno, Nevada, protests the award of a contract to Management & Training Corporation (MTC), of Centerville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1630J5-17-R-00003, which was issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), for the operation of the Atterbury Job Corps Center in Edinburgh, Indiana, and the Indypendence Career Development Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Adams alleges that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency for Adams' phase-out plan, and unreasonably evaluated offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on September 19, 2017, and subsequently amended five times, sought proposals for the operation of the Atterbury Job Corps and Indypendence Career Development Centers. The two centers provide academic, career technical, career success skills, career development, and related support services for approximately 410 residential students and 100 non-residential students. RFP, amend. No. 0003, at 3. In addition to providing the above services, the contractor will also provide Job Corps program outreach and admission services, as well as post-career transition services, in the state of Indiana. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract with fixed-price and cost-reimbursable not-to-exceed contract line items, and a 2-year base period of performance, and three, 1-year option periods. Id. at 3, 5-11. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical; (2) staff resources; (3) relevant experience; (4) past performance; and (5) business management proposal (cost). RFP, amend. No. 0004, at 17. All of the non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. Id. With respect to factors 1, 2, and 3, the RFP identified specific subfactors. RFP, amend. No. 0003, at 103. Relevant to the issues in this protest, factor 2, staff resources, included subfactor 2F, phase-in/phase-out plans. Under the staff resources factor, the RFP required that offerors "thoroughly demonstrate how the offeror's proposal" responded to the accompanying subfactor requirements. Id. at 94. Subfactor 2F required offerors to provide phase-in/phase-out plans. For these plans, the RFP specified that the plans "shall include the period of time required for each action, staff requirements, and major steps to be accomplished during these periods." Id. at 95. With respect to the evaluation of the staff resources factor, the RFP stated that the evaluation would "consist of the responses to the Subfactors and Elements outlined in Section L of this solicitation," and that the agency would "evaluate the Offeror's overall responses, including the identification of any strengths or weaknesses in the proposed approaches, and provide an overall rating for Staff Resources." Id. at 104. The RFP further provided that phase-in/phase-out plans would be evaluated "in accordance with the degree to which the phase-in/phase-out plans demonstrate the offeror's knowledge [of] the scope of the tasks to be accomplished; and the adequacy of the corporate resources proposed to complete the tasks to be accomplished." Id. at 105.