Strategy Consulting Team, LLC (W15QKN-20-R-0019)

B-418512 Jun 02, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategy Consulting Team, LLC (SCT), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Serco, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-20-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Army for analytic, management, and advisory services in support of the Army's civilian readiness and talent management (CRTM) efforts. The protester contends that the Army conducted misleading discussions and that Serco had a potentially disqualifying 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:  Strategy Consulting Team, LLC File:  B-418512 Date:  June 2, 2020 Christopher Collins, Esq., Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, P.C., for the protester. Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Serco, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Kenneth C. Gilliland, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that an agency conducted misleading discussions with the protester concerning its proposed staffing in a task order competition under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16 is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably advised the protester of the deficiencies in its proposal that required improvement and the language of the evaluation notice did not misinform the protester about the problem with its proposal. 2.  Protest alleging the existence of an unequal access to information organizational conflict of interest is denied where the protester fails to present hard facts indicating the existence of a conflict. DECISION   Strategy Consulting Team, LLC (SCT), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Serco, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-20-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Army for analytic, management, and advisory services in support of the Army’s civilian readiness and talent management (CRTM) efforts.  The protester contends that the Army conducted misleading discussions and that Serco had a potentially disqualifying organizational conflict of interest (OCI).  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On November 27, 2019, the Army issued the RFP to firms holding contracts under the Army Human Resource Solutions Personnel Life Cycle Support multiple‑award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, Army Email Issuing RFP; AR, Tab 4b, RFP Evaluation Plan at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1-2.  The solicitation sought proposals to provide CRTM support to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower & Reserve Affairs.  AR, Tab 5b, RFP amend. 0001, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  The solicitation contemplated award of a single task order with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line items for a 14-day transition period, an 11.5 month base period, and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 4b, RFP Evaluation Plan at 1.  The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical and price evaluation factors.  Id.  For purposes of performing the best-value tradeoff, the technical factor was more important than the price factor.  Id. The technical factor would be evaluated by considering each offeror’s proposed technical approach, staffing approach, management process, and transition plan.  Id. at 3.  These four areas were not subfactors and would not be separately weighted.  Each of the four areas was to be evaluated for its demonstrated understanding of the PWS requirements, the completeness and adequacy of the response to the RFP, and the feasibility of the proposed approach.  Id. at 5-6.  As specifically relevant here, the RFP provided that each proposal would be evaluated “to determine whether the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements is adequately reflected in their approach.”  Id.  Also, each proposal would be evaluated to determine “the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the PWS tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.  The evaluation will also consider the proposed hours and labor mix for the [task order].”  Id. at 6.  The technical factor would be rated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id.