Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC (12SAD119R0003)

B-418483.2,B-418483.3 Sep 10, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC (MCS), of Lewisville, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Information Systems and Networks Corporation (ISN), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 12SAD119R0003, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for property preservation and inspection services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated ISN's price and non-price proposals as well as the relevance of ISN's experience and past performance. The protester further contends that the USDA did not meaningfully investigate ISN's organizational conflict of interest (OCI). 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:  Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC File:  B-418483.2; B-418483.3 Date:  September 10, 2020 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Erin L. Felix, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., and John M. Mattox II, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for Information Systems and Networks Corporation, the intervenor.  Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the awardee possessed a disqualifying organizational conflict of interest is denied where the agency investigated the protester’s allegations and reasonably concluded that work performed by the awardee under a different contract did not provide it with access to information that created an unfair competitive advantage. 2.  Protest that agency improperly evaluated the relevance of awardee’s experience and past performance is denied where the agency reasonably considered the relevance of the contracts submitted by the awardee and assigned ratings consistent with the awardee’s overall experience and past performance. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s price realism evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee’s pricing and where a more in-depth price analysis was not required by the solicitation. DECISION   Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC (MCS), of Lewisville, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Information Systems and Networks Corporation (ISN), of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 12SAD119R0003, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for property preservation and inspection services.  The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated ISN’s price and non-price proposals as well as the relevance of ISN’s experience and past performance.  The protester further contends that the USDA did not meaningfully investigate ISN’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 27, 2019, seeking nationwide property and asset management services associated with the liquidation of single-family housing rural properties.[1]  COS at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of an 18-month indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with fixed-price, time-and-materials, and cost line items.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 4.[2]  The anticipated contract would contain no option periods.  Id.   The solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS) included an attachment for certain property inspection and preservation services to be performed under the contract’s first task order.  Offerors were asked to price both the IDIQ contract line item numbers (CLINs) and the first task order CLINs.  The RFP contemplated that contract award would be on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the evaluation of three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and cost/price.  Id. at 72.  Technical capability was more important than past performance, and both factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.   The technical evaluation factor consisted of the following five subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) relevant experience; (2) nationwide coverage, geographic service area; (3) management approach, to include the quality assurance surveillance plan; (4) staffing plan, key personnel resumes, subcontractors, and subcontracting plan; and (5) property management system.  Id.  For the evaluation of past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to “submit a list of the last three contracts completed during the past three years or currently being performed that are similar to the solicitation size, scope, and complexity, and that are specifically related to property preservation and inspection services.”  Id. at 67.