KSJ & Associates, Inc.

B-417850 Nov 18, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KSJ & Associates, Inc. (KSJ) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Deloitte Consulting, LLP (Deloitte) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT0011-17-R-0020-0003, issued by the Defense Health Agency (DHA) for project management and program management support services to be provided to the DHA's Deputy Assistant Director--Information Operations and the Solution Delivery Division. KSJ challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal and the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  KSJ & Associates, Inc. File:  B-417850 Date:  November 18, 2019 Mary Witzel, Esq., David Ludwig, Esq., and Thomas Dunlap, Esq., Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, for the protester. Keith Szeliga, Esq., Katie A. Calogero, Esq., Adam Bartolanzo, Esq., Bryce Chadwick, Esq., Keeley McCarty, Esq., and Ariel Debin, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for Deloitte Consulting, LLP, the intervenor. Melvin A. Lee, Esq., Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the evaluation of a protester’s technical proposal as unreasonable, without providing sufficient facts or description to support the allegation, is dismissed for failure to establish a sufficient factual or legal basis for protest. 2.  Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation, filed after the closing date for receipt of initial proposals, is untimely. DECISION KSJ & Associates, Inc. (KSJ) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Deloitte Consulting, LLP (Deloitte) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT0011-17-R-0020-0003, issued by the Defense Health Agency (DHA) for project management and program management support services to be provided to the DHA’s Deputy Assistant Director--Information Operations and the Solution Delivery Division.  KSJ challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal and the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest.   BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 17, 2018, anticipated the award of a labor-hour task order under the General Services Administration (GSA) Professional Services Schedule, special item number 874-7 Integrated Business Program Support Services, utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation § 8.405-2 ordering procedures.[1]  COS at 1.  The solicitation sought proposals for project management and program management support services to be provided to the DHA’s Deputy Assistant Director--Information Operations and the Solution Delivery Division.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis.  AR, Tab 4, Instructions to Offerors, at 7.  Offerors were advised that the agency would make award based on consideration of the following factors and subfactors, in descending order of importance: 1. Technical a. Technical Approach b. Experience c. Management Approach d. Quality Control Approach 2. Price 3. Small Business Participation Commitment 4. Past Performance. Id.  The solicitation provided detailed instructions regarding the expected specificity of offerors’ proposals, stating with respect to the most important subfactor, technical approach, that an offeror “shall describe . . . in detail, its technical approach to perform business operations and product support services as described by the tasks” listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).  Id. at 3.  Moreover, the RFP advised that an offeror’s proposal “must include all data and information requested in this solicitation”; “shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims”; and “shall not simply rephrase or restate the [g]overnment’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.”  Id. at 1. The solicitation instructed that the “[g]overnment will evaluate the extent to which the proposal exhibits a clear understanding of the work requirements and the means required to fulfill the requirements.”  Id. at 7.