Blumont Engineering Solutions, Inc. (72026719R00002)

B-418080,B-418080.2,B-418080.3 Jan 09, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI), of Arlington, Virginia, and Blumont Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Blumont), of Madison, Wisconsin protest the award of a contract to Chemonics International Inc. (Chemonics), of Washington, D. C., under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 72026719R00002 issued by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for economic and community development projects in Iraq. The protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of proposals. We deny the protests in part and dismiss the protests in part. 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:  Management Systems International, Inc.; Blumont Engineering Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418080, B-418080.2, B-418080.3 Date:  January 9, 2020 Robert Nichols, Esq., and Andrew Victor, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for Management Systems International, Inc.; David T. Ralston, Jr., Esq., Frank S. Murray, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., and Micah T. Zomer, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for Blumont Engineering Solutions, Inc., the protesters. Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price PC, and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Law Office of Eric J. Marcotte, for Chemonics International Inc., the intervenor. John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors’ proposals are denied, where the agency evaluated proposals consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation factors. DECISION Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI), of Arlington, Virginia, and Blumont Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Blumont), of Madison, Wisconsin protest the award of a contract to Chemonics International Inc. (Chemonics), of Washington, D. C., under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 72026719R00002 issued by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for economic and community development projects in Iraq.  The protesters challenge the agency’s evaluation of proposals. We deny the protests in part and dismiss the protests in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on April 10, 2019, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, seeking a contractor to implement a project entitled USAID/Iraq Durable Communities and Economic Opportunities (DCEO).  Agency Report (AR) MSI Tab 3; Blumont Tab 4, RFP at 1.[1]  The two objectives of the DCEO contract are to provide support to:  (1) increase the adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities; and (2) advance the economic wellbeing of communities.  AR, Tab 4A, Statement of Objectives, at 1.  The contract will be principally performed in Iraq.  RFP at 15.  The performance work statement (PWS) was to be developed by the offeror based on the content of the RFP and inserted at the time of award.  Id. at 11.  The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, with a 5-year ordering period and a 7-year period of performance, under which cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price task orders would be issued.  Id. at 7, 15.  The IDIQ has an overall ceiling price of $125,000,000.  Id. at 7.  The government anticipated making award without conducting discussions, but reserved the right to hold discussions with offerors in accordance with FAR clause 52.215-1(f)(4).  Id. at 82.  The RFP advised offerors to submit their best technical and cost proposals in their initial offers.  Id. at 82.  The RFP incorporated FAR clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, which stated that the government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the government’s interest.  FAR clause 52.215-1(f)(2); RFP at 66. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical and cost proposals.  Id. at 82.  The technical proposal was required to address how the offeror intended to meet the objectives of the RFP, and contain a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibility of all parties involved.  Id. at 69.  The technical factors, listed in descending order of importance, were:   the technical approach or the PWS of the IDIQ[2]; the management plan or the PWS for task order No. 1; performance monitoring and evaluation (M&E) learning (PMEL) plan; key personnel; and past performance.  Id.