MindPetal Software Solutions, Inc.

B-418016 Dec 20, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MindPetal Software Solutions, Inc., a small business concern of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of contracts to Centennial Technologies, Inc., of Leesburg, Virginia, iWorks Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, and PPS InfoTech, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 910031-19-R-0003, issued by the Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), for enterprise middleware architecture and services. MindPetal contends that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable best-value determination. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  MindPetal Software Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418016 Date:  December 20, 2019 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Scott M. Dinner, Esq., ProTorae Law, PLLC, for the protester. Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, and Jonathan L. Spear, Esq., for Centennial Technologies, Inc.; Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Patrick K. Burns, Esq., and Emily J. Rouleau, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for iWorks Corporation, the intervenors. Kehinde Stinson, Esq., and Michael S. Taylor, Esq., Department of Education, 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 that the agency improperly assessed multiple deficiencies to the protester’s proposal is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal did not substantively address a number of solicitation requirements. 2.  Protester is not an interested party to raise other challenges to the agency’s evaluations and award decision where the agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal to be technically unacceptable. DECISION MindPetal Software Solutions, Inc., a small business concern of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of contracts to Centennial Technologies, Inc., of Leesburg, Virginia, iWorks Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, and PPS InfoTech, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 910031-19-R-0003, issued by the Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), for enterprise middleware architecture and services.  MindPetal contends that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on April 15, 2019, as a small business set-aside, for solutions, services, and materials for FSA’s applications and systems in three service areas:  (1) integrated technical architecture (ITA); (2) enterprise service bus (ESB); and (3) cloud services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at 1, 4.  The RFP contemplated the award of one or more indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contracts with a 10-year period of performance.  Id. at 2.  The RFP also contemplated, simultaneously with the award of the contracts, the issuance of two initial task orders--task order 0001 for ITA support and task order 0002 for ESB support--and provided performance work statements (PWS) for these task orders as attachments to the RFP.  Id. at 17. The RFP instructed offerors to submit proposals comprised of five volumes as follows: (1) relevant experience; (2) technical approach for sample task order 0003 for cloud services support; (3) technical approach for task order 0001 for ITA support; (4) technical approach for task order 0002 for ESB support; and (5) price proposal.  RFP at 11-14.  Under each of the technical approach volumes, the RFP instructed offerors to “submit narratives describing its technical approach” to meeting the RFP requirements for the particular area.  Id. at 12-13.  For example, under volume three, the RFP stated that the offeror “must submit narratives describing its technical approach to meeting the following requirements from Attachment 1, ITA Performance Work Statement” and listed sixteen sections of the PWS.  Id.  Likewise, under volume four, the RFP stated that the offeror “must submit narratives describing its technical approach to meeting the following PWS requirements from Attachment 2, ESB [PWS]” and specifically listed fifteen sections of that PWS.  Id. at 13-14.  The RFP informed offerors that the agency would first evaluate proposals using a two‑step down-select procedure.  Id.