Candor Solutions, LLC (70B04C19Q00000027)

B-418670.2,B-418670.3,B-418670.4 Jan 19, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Candor Solutions, LLC (Candor), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Patriot, LLC, of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B04C19Q00000027, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for technology service-desk operations. Candor alleges that the agency used a facially unreasonable adjectival rating scheme in its evaluation; unreasonably deviated from this scheme in evaluating Candor's proposal; unreasonably evaluated Candor's proposal under the non-price factors; and did not evaluate Patriot's proposal according to the RFP terms under the price factor. 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:  Candor Solutions, LLC File:  B-418670.2; B-418670.3; B-418670.4 Date:  January 19, 2021 Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., and Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., and Sylvia Yi, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for Patriot, LLC, the intervenor. Melissa K. Erny, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency used a facially unreasonable adjectival rating scheme and then deviated from this scheme in its evaluation is denied where protester has not shown that the evaluation scheme was unreasonable and the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the relative merits of protester’s proposal in its source selection. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal under the non-price factors, and the awardee’s proposal under the price factor, is denied where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION   Candor Solutions, LLC (Candor), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Patriot, LLC, of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B04C19Q00000027, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for technology service-desk operations.  Candor alleges that the agency used a facially unreasonable adjectival rating scheme in its evaluation; unreasonably deviated from this scheme in evaluating Candor’s proposal; unreasonably evaluated Candor’s proposal under the non-price factors; and did not evaluate Patriot’s proposal according to the RFP terms under the price factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUD The agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, to holders of the National Institutes of Health information technology acquisition and assessment center Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) governmentwide multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP at 65.[1]  The RFP sought technology service desk (TSD) operations; the TSD is “the primary point of contact for answering and responding to incoming calls, emails, self service requests and reports of information system problems by documenting, diagnosing, and tracking reported issues/requests of all CBP systems of data and communications with end-users.”  AR, Tab 8, PWS at 6.  The requirement includes technology support services for over 65,000 CBP employees and contractors, trade partners, and participating government agencies at over 1,800 CBP and non-CBP locations worldwide.  Id. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price, time-and-materials task order with a 3-month base period, four 1-year option periods, and one 9-month option period.  RFP at 64, 65.  The task order would be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following five factors, listed in descending order of importance:  staffing and key personnel, technical/management approach, incoming transition plan, past performance, and price.  Id. at 71.  All of the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. As relevant to this protest, under the staffing and key personnel factor, offerors had to propose a staffing plan by labor category and describe their capability to hire and retain staff to perform the requirements in the PWS.  Id.