MFL Consulting

B-417939,B-417939.2 Dec 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MFL Consulting, of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Northport Affiliates, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140P2119R0012, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for insurance consultation services. MFL argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, and failed to engage in adequate discussions. We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  MFL Consulting File:  B-417939; B-417939.2 Date:  December 3, 2019 Luis Munoz-Fernandez for the protester. Frederic W. Corle, II, for Northport Affiliates, LLC, the intervenor. Sheryl Rakestraw, Esq., and Dana-Marie Akpan, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and adequacy of discussions is dismissed in part, and denied in part, where several of the protester’s allegations are untimely; one of its allegations fails to demonstrate prejudice; and there is nothing in the record to show that the agency misled the protester during discussions, such that it was required to reopen discussions. DECISION MFL Consulting, of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Northport Affiliates, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140P2119R0012, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for insurance consultation services.  MFL argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, and failed to engage in adequate discussions. We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part. The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity type contract for a base year and four 1-year options to provide insurance consulting services.  Essentially, the successful contractor will be required to provide the agency with expertise that allows the agency to determine its insurance-related needs and the cost associated with those needs.  RFP Attach.1, Statement of Work.  The RFP contemplates that the agency will negotiate individual task orders on an as-needed basis throughout the contract’s period of performance.  RFP, Amend. No. 0003, at 10.  Proposals would be evaluated considering price and several non-price considerations.  RFP, Amend. No. 0003, at 44-45.[1]  The RFP included three non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical experience, management approach and past performance.  RFP Amend. No. 0003, at 44.  The RFP further advised that the non-price considerations were collectively approximately equal in importance to price.  RFP, Amend. No. 0003, at 45.  The agency’s evaluation under the non-price factors is not at issue in this protest. The RFP included several price-related provisions that are the subject of the protest (we discuss the RFP’s price-related evaluation considerations in detail below).  In preparing their respective price proposals, offerors were required to complete an excel spreadsheet workbook.  RFP, Amend. No. 0003, Attach. 1.  The workbook included seven spreadsheets that had to be completed.  The first spreadsheet was to include each offeror’s proposed price to perform a sample task order that was itself comprised of four discrete subtasks.  Id., Worksheet 1.  This worksheet included spaces for the offeror to provide labor categories, the number of hours for each labor category, and an hourly rate for each labor category, along with spaces to provide extended pricing calculated by multiplying the hourly rates by the number of hours proposed, as well as overall pricing per subtask that included the cost of labor, along with other direct costs.[2]  There also was a line on this worksheet for the offerors to insert a grand total, which included the price for each of the four subtasks. The next five worksheets were to include the offerors’ hourly rates for all labor categories proposed, with each of the worksheets representing one of the five years of contract performance.  RFP, Amend. No. 0003, Attach.