Insight Technology Solutions, Inc.

B-417388,B-417388.2 Jun 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Insight Technology Solutions, Inc. (ITS), a small business of Bowie, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to BB&E, Inc., a small business of Northville, Michigan, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA4890-19-R-9956, under the General Services Administration's (GSA) OASIS Small Business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for engineering and environmental advisory and assistance program support services for the Air Force. The protester alleges that the awardee's proposal included material misrepresentations, and that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Insight Technology Solutions, Inc. File:  B-417388; B-417388.2 Date:  June 19, 2019 Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Deborah Norris Rodin, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC, for the protester. John C. Dulske, Esq., Bryan Kost, Esq., Bonnie Kirkland, Esq., Dykema Gossett PLLC, for the intervenor. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Captain George Mathew, Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that awardee’s proposal contained material misrepresentations is denied where the record does not support a conclusion that the proposal contained misrepresentations or that the agency relied on any false information. 2.  Protest alleging agency erred in evaluation of past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest that agency erred in conducting a best-value tradeoff by failing to consider the strengths of the protester’s technical approach is denied where the solicitation established that the technical approach would be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable and the tradeoff would be based solely on consideration of past performance and price. DECISION Insight Technology Solutions, Inc. (ITS), a small business of Bowie, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to BB&E, Inc., a small business of Northville, Michigan, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA4890-19-R-9956, under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) OASIS Small Business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for engineering and environmental advisory and assistance program support services for the Air Force.  The protester alleges that the awardee’s proposal included material misrepresentations, and that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the FOPR on December 10, 2018.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.  The FOPR contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order, with a cost-reimbursable contract line item for travel.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Conformed FOPR at 1.  The FOPR provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three evaluation factors:  (1) past performance; (2) technical; and (3) price.  FOPR at 2.  The FOPR also indicated that award would be made on the basis of a tradeoff between price and past performance, with past performance being significantly more important than price.  Id.  The FOPR noted, however, that the greater the equality of proposals under factors other than price, the more important price would become in the best-value tradeoff.  Id. With respect to past performance, the FOPR provided that offerors would be assigned one of the following confidence ratings based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance:  (1) substantial confidence; (2) satisfactory confidence; (3) neutral confidence; (4) limited confidence; (5) no confidence.  FOPR at 8-10.  Regarding the relevance of past performance information, the FOPR provided that the evaluation team would conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort.  Id. at 5.  However, the FOPR also noted that each past performance effort would be assigned a relevance rating on the basis of two factors:  (1) the number of locations outside the continental United States (OCONUS) at which the offeror performed services; and (2) the number of full-time employees each effort involved.  Id.