ARServices, Limited

B-417561,B-417561.2 Aug 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARServices, Limited, an 8(a) small business concern of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to RightDirection Technology Solutions, Inc., an 8(a) small business concern of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposal (RFP) No. SP4701-18-R-0047, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for research and development program management support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the offerors' technical proposals under the key personnel subfactor, failed to reasonably assess the awardee's responsibility, and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny in part and dismiss in part 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:  ARServices, Limited File:  B-417561; B-417561.2 Date:  August 19, 2019 Megan C. Connor, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Emily J. Rouleau, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Elizabeth Amato, Esq., and Michael D. McPeak, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably found, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, that the protester’s proposed key personnel failed to satisfy the solicitation’s minimum requirements. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and performed in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s affirmative determination of responsibility for an awardee is dismissed where the protester does not raise any allegations that are within the narrow exceptions for GAO’s consideration of this issue. 4.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s best-value tradeoff and award decision where the agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal to be technically unacceptable and the protester’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee are without merit. DECISION ARServices, Limited, an 8(a) small business concern of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to RightDirection Technology Solutions, Inc., an 8(a) small business concern of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposal (RFP) No. SP4701-18-R-0047, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for research and development program management support services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the offerors’ technical proposals under the key personnel subfactor, failed to reasonably assess the awardee’s responsibility, and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. BACKGROUND On September 6, 2018, DLA issued the RFP pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, as a set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Conformed RFP, at 1, 55.[1]  The RFP included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) requiring the contractor to provide a broad range of subject matter expertise, technical analysis, and documentation in support of DLA’s research and development program.  Id. at 4-30.  The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, two 1‑year option periods, and a 1-month transition phase-out.  Id. at 4, 51. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors--technical, past performance, and price--where the technical factor was more important than past performance, and non-price factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 59.  Of the two subfactors comprising the technical factor, the technical approach subfactor was more important than the key personnel subfactor.  Id.  The RFP stated that proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable under the technical factor and subfactors.  Id. at 59-61.[2]  As relevant here, an unacceptable rating under the technical factor was defined as a proposal that “does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.”  Id. at 59.  The RFP further stated that an unacceptable proposal would be unawardable.  Id.  With respect to the key personnel subfactor, offerors were to propose key personnel for four positions:  program manager, applications developer, subject matter expert in strategic communication and outreach, and subject matter expert in finance.  Id.