Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC (89303019RMA000008)

B-418459.2,B-418459.3 Apr 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to WITS Solutions, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303019RMA000008, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for Freedom of Information Act support services. Goldschmitt argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, made an unreasonable source selection decision, and unreasonably found WITS responsible. 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:  Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC File:  B-418459.2; B-418459.3 Date:  April 15, 2020 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., David R. Warner, Esq., Tyler J. Freiberger, Esq., Heather Mims, Esq., and Edward Bailey, Esq., Centre Law and Consulting, LLC, for WITS Solutons, Inc., the intervenor. Nicholas M. Bidewell, Esq., and Kevin R. Hilferty, Esq., Department of Energy, 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 source selection decision is denied where record shows agency’s evaluation and source selection were reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION   Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to WITS Solutions, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303019RMA000008, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for Freedom of Information Act support services.  Goldschmitt argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, made an unreasonable source selection decision, and unreasonably found WITS responsible. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a labor-hours contract with fixed unit prices to meet the agency’s requirements for a base year and two 1-year options.  Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering price and several non-price factors that, collectively, were deemed significantly more important than price.  RFP at 39.  The non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance, were:  technical approach, staffing approach, relevant corporate experience, and past performance.[1]  RFP at 39-40.  The RFP advised that price would be evaluated for mathematical correctness, completeness and reasonableness, and that the agency would review the proposed option pricing for possible unbalancing.  RFP at 41-42. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals.  The agency evaluated the proposals and assigned ratings under each of the evaluation factors, and arrived at total prices for each offeror.  For the protester’s and awardee’s proposals, the agency assigned the following ratings and determined their total prices as follows:   Goldschmitt WITS Technical Approach Outstanding Outstanding Staffing Approach Good Good Relevant Corporate Experience Good Good Past Performance Favorable Favorable Total Price $9,484,863 $8,237,888   Agency Report (AR), exh. B.2, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 5-6, 16.  On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency selected WITS, finding that, although the Goldschmitt proposal offered a slight advantage under the relevant corporate experience factor, the cost premium associated with its proposal was not worth the slight advantage identified by the agency.  Id. at 19.  After being advised of the agency’s selection decision, and requesting and receiving a debriefing, Goldschmitt filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Goldschmitt takes issue with many of the agency’s evaluation conclusions.  We have reviewed all of the firm’s allegations and find them to be without merit.  We discuss the firm’s principal contentions below.  We note at the outset that, in considering challenges to an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office does not substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and applicable statutes and regulations.  CDO Technologies, Inc.; Abacus Technology Corporation, B‑418111, et al., Jan.