FEDSYNC BEI, LLC

B-417492,B-417492.2 Jul 23, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FEDSYNC BEI, LLC (FED-B), of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Seventh Sense Consulting (SSC), of Woodbridge, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80NSSC18R0025, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for acquisition support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals. 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:  FEDSYNC BEI, LLC File:  B-417492; B-417492.2 Date:  July 23, 2019 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for Seventh Sense Consulting, the intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Troy Taylor, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation requirements. DECISION FEDSYNC BEI, LLC (FED-B), of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Seventh Sense Consulting (SSC), of Woodbridge, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80NSSC18R0025, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for acquisition support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12--Acquisition of Commercial Items--was set aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s section 8(a) program.  The solicitation sought proposals for the award of a single contract, under which the agency would issue fixed-price/level-of-effort task orders.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1-2.  The base period of the contract would be 1 year, with four 1-year options.  Id. at 2.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering two non-price factors--mission suitability and past performance--and price.  Id. at 35.  The mission suitability (MS) factor contained two subfactors:  MS-1, staffing, recruitment and retention; and MS-2, phase-in approach.  Id. at 37-38.  Under the mission suitability factor, the agency would assign a total possible point score of 1,000, with 850 possible points under staffing, recruitment, and retention, and 150 possible points under phrase-in approach.  Id. at 38.  The agency would also assign proposals adjectival ratings under the mission suitability subfactors.[1]  The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in weight; together, those two factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 35. Under the staffing, recruiting, and retention subfactor of the mission suitability factor, the RFP required proposals to include an “organizational structure chart describ[ing] how it demonstrates efficiency and effectiveness in managing the work, onsite and/or offsite, particularly across the multiple sites (NASA Centers).”  Id. at 31.  The offeror was required to describe “the responsibilities and authority, as well as the qualifications and experience (resumes), of the Contract Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager (Key Personnel)” and “its proposed interfaces with its subcontractors and identify the specific Performance Work Statement [PWS] sections the prime and each subcontractor is proposed to perform.”  Id.  Under the above subfactor, the RFP also required proposals to include a staffing plan that “demonstrates the offeror’s approach for recruiting, retaining, and managing attrition so as to provide a qualified and highly motivated workforce for the contract[.]”  Id.  The RFP provided that “[p]roposals that demonstrate an increased potential for recruiting and maintaining a qualified workforce, especially in the area of acquisition support services, will be evaluated more favorably.”  Id. at 38.  The staffing plan was required to “demonstrate the offeror’s approach for ensuring commitment of key personnel in the management of the contract, to include the extent of their availability, and company commitment.”  Id. at 31.  The RFP required that offerors provide “personal commitment letters (form not provided), signed by the individuals listed as key personnel.”  Id.  The solicitation did not specify the content of the commitment letters, nor did it specify how the letters would be evaluated.  See id.