DirectViz Solutions, LLC (307595)

B-418706,B-418706.2 Aug 07, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DirectViz Solutions, LLC (DirectViz), a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Exeter Information Technology Services, LLC (Exeter), a small business of Gaithersburg, Maryland, under solicitation No. 307595, issued by the Department of the Army for enterprise information technology (IT) support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the Army's evaluation of proposals under the technical/management factor and maintains that the best-value decision was unreasonable. 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:  DirectViz Solutions, LLC File:  B-418706; B-418706.2 Date:  August 7, 2020 Damien C. Specht, Esq., Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Exeter Information Technology Services, LLC, the intervenor. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. and Warren A Reardon, 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 Protests alleging that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision are denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   DirectViz Solutions, LLC (DirectViz), a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Exeter Information Technology Services, LLC (Exeter), a small business of Gaithersburg, Maryland, under solicitation No. 307595, issued by the Department of the Army for enterprise information technology (IT) support services.  The protester challenges various aspects of the Army’s evaluation of proposals under the technical/management factor and maintains that the best-value decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2019, the agency issued the solicitation to all small businesses holding contracts under the Army’s Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software Solutions (CHESS) IT Enterprise Solutions (ITES-3S) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single task order with fixed-price and time-and-materials contract line items for a 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods, and an optional 6‑month extension under FAR clause 52.217‑8.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Solicitation at 002.[1]  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two evaluation factors:  technical/management and price.  Id. at 014.  For the purpose of performing the best-value tradeoff, the technical/management factor was significantly more important than price.  Id. The technical/management factor would be evaluated for the offeror’s demonstrated technical and management capability, understanding of the performance work statement (PWS) requirements, and the likelihood of success.  Id. at 016.  Each proposal would be assessed an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable under the technical/management factor.  The solicitation specified that “[m]ere statements of compliance or repetition of the technical and/or management requirements, without a complete discussion and analysis, will not be rated as acceptable or higher.”  Id.  The technical/management factor would be evaluated in each of the following areas:  staffing and retention plan, procurement automated data and document system (PADDS)[2] sustainment support, risk management framework (RMF) process, cyber support, and surge approach.  Id.  With regard to staffing and retention plans, the agency would evaluate how the offeror will acquire, train, and maintain staffing levels required within the PWS.  Id.  The agency also would evaluate each offeror’s methodology and process for reducing mission risk during performance.  Id.  As particularly relevant here, the agency was to evaluate the offeror’s “methodologies to staffing and retaining employees that have the appropriate skill set (including certifications and training) and how it will ensure that service interruptions are held to a minimum.”  Id.  With regard to PADDS sustainment support, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s approach for its “innovation and how it decreases risk while increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.”  Id.