People, Technology and Processes, LLC

B-417208 Mar 21, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights People, Technology & Processes, LLC (PTP), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, challenges the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92222-18-R-0012, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for intelligence support for the Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF). The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the key personnel subfactor and past performance factor, as well as its exclusion from the competitive range. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  People, Technology & Processes, LLC File:  B-417208 Date:  March 21, 2019 Victor L. Buonamia for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency was required to seek clarification before excluding the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where such communications are discretionary. 2.  Protest that the agency failed to disclose the relative weight of evaluation criteria is denied where the elements considered in determining the relevance of past experience of offerors’ key personnel were not identified in the solicitation as evaluation factors or subfactors, nor did the agency treat them as such. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation and its competitive range determination is dismissed where the protester abandoned its substantive challenges to the agency’s evaluation. DECISION People, Technology & Processes, LLC (PTP), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, challenges the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92222-18-R‑0012, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for intelligence support for the Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF).  The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the key personnel subfactor and past performance factor, as well as its exclusion from the competitive range. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.[1] BACKGROUND On July 13, 2018, USSOCOM issued the solicitation as an SDVOSB set-aside, seeking intelligence support services for JSOTF.[2]  RFP at 1, 84, 155.[3]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single contract with a combination of labor-hour, fixed-price, and cost contract line item numbers (CLINs) and a period of performance of a base year followed by four option years.  Id. at 2-11, 79. The contract, known as the Intelligence Support Service--Joint (ISSJ) II contract, is a second-generation requirement to provide multi-disciplinary or full-spectrum intelligence, including human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), open source intelligence (OSINT), geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), and targeting intelligence.  Id. at 84; MOL at 2.  Pursuant to the ISSJ II contract, these services will be provided by a pool of 262 contractor personnel located both within and outside the contiguous United States.  RFP at 84, 86.  Personnel will be embedded with elite special operations forces units to carry out U.S. combat and other mission requirements.  Id. at 84.  See Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation notified offerors that the agency would make an award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following five evaluation factors:  (1) qualifying criteria, (2) transition plan, (3) management plan, key personnel, and oral presentations,[4] (4) past performance, and (5) price.  Id. at 166, 169.  Specifically, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate proposals on a pass/fail basis against the qualifying criteria.  Id. at 166.  Next, the agency would conduct a tradeoff analysis of proposals under the remaining evaluation factors.  Id. at 168.  With regard to the relative importance of the remaining factors, the solicitation indicated that the transition plan factor was more important than the management plan, key personnel, and oral presentations factor.[5]  Id.  When combined, these two factors were more important than the past performance factor.  Id.  Finally, the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. The RFP provided that, under the transition plan factor (factor 2) and the management plan, key personnel, and oral presentations factor (factor 3), the agency would assign proposals one of the following color/adjectival ratings:  blue/outstanding, purple/good, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable.[6]  Id.