Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC (91003119R0008)

B-418870.6,B-418870.7 Oct 30, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the decision by the Department of Education (DOE) to reject, as unacceptable, the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 91003119-R-0008, which was issued for services in support of the Office of Federal Student Aid's (FSA) Business Process Operations (BPO) requirement. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the technical and past performance factors, and engaged in disparate treatment. 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:  Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC File:  B-418870.6; B-418870.7 Date:  October 30, 2020 Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., Kendra Perkins Norwood, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and George Petel, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation; and James C. Fontana, Esq., Jeffry R. Cook, Esq., L. James D’Agostino, Esq., and David B. Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey Fontana, PLLC, for F.H. Cann & Associates, the intervenors. Megan R. Nathan, Esq., and John W. Kim, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency failed to follow the solicitation’s evaluation scheme in rating the protester’s proposal unacceptable under the technical approach factor, despite the proposal receiving a strength under the most important subfactor, is denied where the proposal was evaluated as creating an unacceptable risk under two technical subfactors, and the solicitation provided that a rating of unacceptable risk under one subfactor could result in the technical proposal being unacceptable. 2.  Protest that agency unreasonably rated proposal as presenting an unacceptable risk under the consumer protection laws subfactor is denied where the proposal addressed adherence to federal laws generally, but not to consumer protection laws specifically, despite a solicitation requirement to address consumer protection laws. 3.  Protest that agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s proposals was consistent with the solicitation. 4.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of awardees’ past performance where protester is not eligible for award. DECISION   Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the decision by the Department of Education (DOE) to reject, as unacceptable, the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 91003119-R-0008, which was issued for services in support of the Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA) Business Process Operations (BPO) requirement.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the technical and past performance factors, and engaged in disparate treatment.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOE issued the solicitation on January 15, 2019, for proposals to provide support for FSA, which is responsible for federal financial assistance programs for post-high school students.  Agency Report (AR), Tab C, RFP, at 1, 3.[1]  The RFP explains that the agency “is embarking on a transformation known as the Next Generation Financial Services Environment (NextGen),” which “seeks to implement a flexible, efficient and effective financial solution to leverage support for our customers, school partners, and taxpayers.”[2] Id. at 3.  The NextGen program is intended to improve customer experiences, operational flexibility, enhance cost and operational efficiency, and “generate better outcomes for customers and taxpayers.”  Id.  The BPO contractors will be required to “support efficient and effective operations, across the entire life cycle of student financing (from application for financing, to origination and disbursement, to processing and servicing and pay-off or default).”  Id. at 7.  The RFP anticipated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts with base periods of 3 years and one 3-year option period.  RFP at 3.  The contracts will provide for the issuance of fixed-price task orders.  Id.  The maximum ordering value for the contracts is $1.7 billion and the minimum guaranteed value for each contract is $1.5 million.  Id. The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated against the following factors:  (1) technical approach, (2) past performance, (3) small business participation, and (4) price.  Id.