InnovaSystems International, LLC

B-417215,B-417215.2,B-417215.3 Apr 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights InnovaSystems International, LLC (InnovaSystems), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to ECS Federal, LLC (ECS), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00264-18-R-0001, issued by the United States Marine Corps (USMC), for a software system known as the Marine Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program (M-SHARP). The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals was unreasonable and that the agency treated offerors disparately. 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: InnovaSystems International, LLC File: B-417215; B-417215.2; B-417215.3 Date: April 3, 2019 Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Mitchell A. Bashur, Esq., and Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Andrew C. Crawford, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, for ECS Federal, LLC, the intervenor. John K. Harms, Esq., and Philip J. Taylor, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency engaged in unequal treatment is denied where the differences in the evaluation stemmed from actual differences between the offerors' proposals. DECISION InnovaSystems International, LLC (InnovaSystems), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to ECS Federal, LLC (ECS), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00264-18-R-0001, issued by the United States Marine Corps (USMC), for a software system known as the Marine Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program (M-SHARP). The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals was unreasonable and that the agency treated offerors disparately. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2018, the agency issued the RFP on the Federal Business Opportunities website in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12 procedures. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed- price contract for a 12-month base period and two 12-month option periods. Agency Report (AR), RFP, at 89.1 The purpose of the procurement is to provide continued support and updates to the Marine Corps' M-SHARP software system, an automated, government-owned data software program that provides real-time forecasting, scheduling, execution, and reporting of accurate data and information. Id. at 13-14. M-SHARP is used by the agency to develop, approve and publish training plans for personnel, as well as to record and report scheduled training and readiness completion, for the attainment and maintenance of individual, crew, and unit combat skills. Id. The RFP included the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability and staffing plan; (2) management and quality processes; (3) past performance; (4) small business participation plan; and (5) price. RFP at 83. When combined, all non-price factors were significantly more important than the price factor. Id. The RFP required offerors to submit a clear and concise proposal that described the offeror's response to the RFP requirements, specifically stating: Use of general or vague statements such as "standard procedures will be used" will not satisfy this requirement. Unnecessary elaboration or presentations beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective solution are not desired and may be construed as a lack of understanding of the requirement. Id. at 89. As relevant to the protest allegations, the RFP stated that the following ratings would be used when evaluating the technical capability and staffing plan, and management and quality processes factors: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.2 RFP at 84-85. The RFP defined a rating of unacceptable as a "[p]roposal [that] does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable." Id. at 85. The RFP further stated: "Any offeror who receives a rating of Unacceptable on any Technical factor or subfactor cannot receive an award and a proposal receiving a [rating] of Unacceptable on any Technical factor or subfactor will not be further evaluated." Id. The agency received proposals from InnovaSystems and ECS. AR, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 4.