Fidelity Decypher Services, LLC (FA805220R0002)

B-418542.2,B-418542.3 Aug 26, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fidelity Decypher Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, a small business, protests the award of contracts to WJM Professional Services, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, and to IVA'AL Solutions, LLC, of Phoenix, Maryland, also small businesses, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052-20-R-0002. The Department of the Air Force issued the RFP for commercial family advocacy personal healthcare services to support the family advocacy program for Air Force personnel, families, and intimate partners located in the continental United States (CONUS) and the United States Forces in Europe (USAFE). Fidelity primarily argues that the Air Force misevaluated its proposal under the past performance and technical factors. 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:  Fidelity Decypher Services, LLC File:  B-418542.2; B-418542.3 Date:  August 26, 2021 Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., and Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., Erin R. Davis, Esq., and Sean A. Graves, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP for WJM Professional Services, LLC; and James M. White, Esq., Marshall & White, PC, for IVA’AL Solutions, LLC, the intervenors. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq., Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq., and Kent H. Grubb, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated the protester’s proposal under the past performance and technical factors is denied where the contemporaneous record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.  DECISION Fidelity Decypher Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, a small business, protests the award of contracts to WJM Professional Services, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, and to IVA’AL Solutions, LLC, of Phoenix, Maryland, also small businesses, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8052-20-R-0002.  The Department of the Air Force issued the RFP for commercial family advocacy personal healthcare services to support the family advocacy program for Air Force personnel, families, and intimate partners located in the continental United States (CONUS) and the United States Forces in Europe (USAFE).[1]  Fidelity primarily argues that the Air Force misevaluated its proposal under the past performance and technical factors.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on January 28, 2020, as a set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s section 8(a) program[2], sought proposals to provide services for a base year and four 1-year options, with a potential of an additional 6-month option.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 14, RFP FAR provision 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items Addendum at 2.  Although the RFP permitted offerors to submit a proposal for any or all of the regions, an offeror could be awarded a contract for no more than a single region.   The RFP also informed offerors of certain requirements that would affect the contractor’s performance, such as the applicability of requirements for employing staff in certain countries due to a status of forces agreement (SOFA)[3] with the host country and approvals by the Department of Defense Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER), among other things.  AR, Tab 3, RFP at 359-363.  Each contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value.  The RFP identified three evaluation factors:  technical/technical risk, past performance, and price.  AR, Tab 15, RFP FAR provision 52.212‐2 Evaluation Criteria Commercial Items Addendum at 3.  The technical/technical risk and past performance factors were equally important and, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  The technical/technical risk factor consisted of three subfactors:  staffing plan, management plan, and transition plan, with the first two subfactors being equally important.  The transition plan subfactor was to be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable, and would have no role in a tradeoff.  AR, Tab 131, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 3.  The RFP instructed offerors to submit examples of past performance for evaluation:  3. Past Performance Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume.