Zolon PCS II, LLC

B-417930 Nov 18, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zolon PCS, LLC, of Ashburn, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0476-19-R-0017, issued by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for systems engineering and integration support services. Zolon argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. 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:  Zolon PCS, LLC File:  B-417930 Date:  November 18, 2019 William T. Welch, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the protester. Bree A. Ermentrout, Esq., and Mark B. Grebel, Esq., National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Zolon PCS, LLC, of Ashburn, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0476‑19‑R‑0017, issued by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for systems engineering and integration support services.  Zolon argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 24, 2019, NGA issued the RFP to procure systems engineering and integration support services to be performed on a cost-plus-award-fee contract over a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 4-10.  When evaluating proposals, NGA would initially assess on a pass or fail basis whether each proposal was compliant with the solicitation’s instructions.  Id. at 80.  NGA would then evaluate proposals under technical/management, past performance, security, and cost factors.  Id. at 79-80.  The security factor would be assessed on a pass or fail basis, but NGA would perform a best-value tradeoff analysis considering the remaining factors.  Id. at 81-82.  The technical/management factor was more important than the past performance factor, and the non-cost factors, when combined, were more important than the cost factor.  Id. The technical/management factor was comprised of four subfactors:  enterprise schedule and effectivity management; standards compliance, definitions, development and management; configuration management; and management approach.[1]  RFP at 83‑84.  Under the management approach subfactor, offerors were required to describe their key personnel qualifications, and demonstrate capability to provide key personnel with the requisite skills and experience in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW).  Id. at 84.  NGA received [DELETED] proposals prior to the March 18, closing time.  Agency Report (AR), Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 3.  Zolon was assigned an unacceptable/red adjectival rating for its proposed management approach.  AR, Competitive Range Determination Document (CRDD) at 3.  Zolon was assigned this rating because its proposal received four deficiencies under this subfactor.  Id. at 5‑6.  The deficiencies were assigned because Zolon’s proposed key personnel did not possess the requisite qualifications provided in the SOW.  Id.  Zolon was also assigned a yellow/marginal rating under the standards compliance, definitions, development, and maintenance subfactor because its proposal demonstrated a poor technical understanding of the requirement.  Id.  In view of these evaluations, NGA did not select Zolon for the competitive range because it determined that Zolon’s technical proposal would require significant revision to meet the solicitation’s requirements.  Id, at 6, 8.  After learning that its proposal was unsuccessful, Zolon filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Zolon alleges that the agency unreasonably assigned its proposal deficiencies and an unacceptable/red rating under the management approach technical subfactor.  Comments at 2.  The firm argues that its proposal should have only been assigned strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to deficiencies, because its proposal was already deemed materially compliant.  Id.