Interactive Government Holdings, Inc.

B-417133 Jan 24, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Interactive Government Holdings, Inc., (IGH) of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to A-Team Solutions, of Fulton, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H9821018R0024, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Agency, for personnel and administrative support services. The protester, the incumbent contractor, alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated A-Team's proposal and improperly made its source selection decision. 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:  Interactive Government Holdings, Inc. File:  B-417133 Date:  January 24, 2019 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Emily J. Rouleau, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Craig J. Berk, Esq., The Berk Law Firm, LLC, for A-Team Solutions, the intervenor. Hattie Russell DuBois, Esq., and William C. Moorhouse, Esq., Defense Human Resources Activity, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency should have conducted a price realism evaluation is denied where the solicitation neither required nor permitted the agency to reject a proposal on the basis of an unrealistically low price. 2.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s terms and conditions, as well as applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 3.  Protest that the source selection decision was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the agency determined that the proposals were technically equivalent and the protester’s advantage under the past performance factor was outweighed by the vastly lower price proposed by the awardee. DECISION Interactive Government Holdings, Inc., (IGH) of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to A-Team Solutions, of Fulton, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H9821018R0024, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Agency, for personnel and administrative support services.  The protester, the incumbent contractor, alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated A-Team’s proposal and improperly made its source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 3, 2018, the agency issued the RFP for support services for its Defense Personnel and Family Support Center (DPFSC).  RFP at 14.  The selected contractor would be required to provide personnel, management, administrative, logistical, technical support, and subject matter experts for the DPFSC’s Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) program and the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP).  Id. at 14-15.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 13.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering, in descending order of importance, technical, past performance, and price factors.  Id., at 48, 52.  When describing their technical understanding, each offeror was required to demonstrate its capability of performing the duties set forth in the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS).  RFP at 39.  The solicitation advised that each offeror’s technical understanding would be assessed by examining proposals under four elements:  technical approach and methodology, project management plan, staffing plan, and transition plan.  Id. at 49‑51. Under the technical approach and methodology element, each offeror would be evaluated for their program knowledge and subject matter expertise, ability to perform Defense Travel System duties, ability to provide YRRP and ESGR program technical assistance, ability to manage and operate a large network of volunteers, and proficiency in operating a network of 3,500 volunteers through management software systems.  Id. at 49-50. Under the past performance factor, each offeror was instructed to submit no more than three recent and relevant past performance references.  RFP at 39.  Recent past performance was described as any effort completed within the past five years.  Id. at 51.  To determine whether a past performance reference was relevant, the agency would assess the reference’s similarity in terms of services performed, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and use of key personnel.  Id.  Each reference would be assigned a rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.  Id.