RIVA Solutions, Inc. (W91QV1-20-R-0001)

B-418408 Mar 31, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RIVA Solutions, Inc. (RIVA), an 8(a) small business of Mclean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Applied Development, LLC (Applied), an 8(a) small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-20-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army for comprehensive strategic communication management support services to the US Army Medical Command's (MEDCOM) Warrior Care and Transition Program. The protest is denied. 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:  RIVA Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418408 Date:  March 31, 2020 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Scott M. Dinner, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Hernandez, Robert B. Neill, Esq., and Zachary Jacobson, Esq., for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal unacceptable. DECISION   RIVA Solutions, Inc. (RIVA), an 8(a) small business of Mclean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Applied Development, LLC (Applied), an 8(a) small business of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-20-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army for comprehensive strategic communication management support services to the US Army Medical Command’s (MEDCOM) Warrior Care and Transition Program. The protest is denied. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on September 12, 2019, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation and part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, as a set-aside for companies participating in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 74.  The RFP sought a contractor to assist MEDCOM in meeting its mission to provide centralized oversight, guidance, advocacy, and empowerment to wounded, ill, and injured soldiers, veterans, and families by providing a comprehensive transition plan for successful reintegration into active duty or veteran status.  Id. at 20.  The RFP contemplated award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis for a six-month base period and three 1-year option periods.  Id. at 21, 74. Proposals would be evaluated based on two factors:  price and technical.  Id. at 74.  The RFP required that an offeror’s technical proposal thoroughly address and convey the ability to successfully complete the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS).  Id. at 71.  The technical factor identified three subfactors, including, as relevant here, the resume subfactor, which required offerors to submit a resume for eight labor categories identified in the RFP.  Id. at 74-75.  Resumes would be evaluated in accordance with the minimum criteria identified for each specific labor category.  Id. at 74.  As relevant here, the minimum criteria for the web developer’s resume required a candidate that possessed a “Bachelor’s degree in [C]omputer [S]cience or other related discipline.”[1]  Id. at 75.  The agency received 31 proposals, including RIVA’s, by the October 11 closing date.  AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1.  RIVA’s proposal included a resume that identified its proposed web developer’s education as a “Bachelor of Arts in Radio, Television, and Film, and in English (double major), including courses in programming languages.”  AR, Tab 6, RIVA Proposal, at 22.  After evaluating proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) rated RIVA’s proposal as unacceptable under the resume subfactor and unacceptable under the technical factor.  AR, Tab 8, SSDD, at 12.  The SSEB concluded that the web developer’s Bachelor of Arts in Radio, Television, and Film and English did not meet the requirement to have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or other related discipline.  Id.  The Contracting Officer (CO), acting as source selection authority (SSA), reviewed the proposals and concurred with the SSEB’s conclusion that RIVA’s proposal was unacceptable under the resume subfactor.[2]  Id. at 14; COS at 3.  The SSEB rated Applied’s proposal as acceptable under the technical factor and each technical subfactor.  AR, Tab 8, SSDD, at 15.  Applied’s total price was $4,768,566 and RIVA’s total price was $4,636,786.[3]  AR, Tab 9, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 2.  However, since Applied’s proposal was deemed technically acceptable and RIVA’s was not, the agency selected Applied’s proposal for award.  AR, Tab 8, SSDD, at 14.