Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc. (20341420R00001)

B-418876.5 Feb 04, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc. (Gunnison), a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Gunnison Consulting Grp., Inc., B-418876 et al., Oct. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 344, denying its protest alleging that the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Bureau), unreasonably issued a task order to Octo Metric LLC, a small business located in Atlanta, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 20341420R00001 for development operations (DevOps) and software development services. Gunnison argues that our decision contained legal errors with regard to our analysis of the agency's evaluation of relevant experience. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-418876.5 Date:  February 4, 2021 James Y. Boland, Esq., Michael T. Francel, Esq., and Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Ashlee N. Adams, Esq., and Mary Schaffer, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the protester essentially reiterates contentions raised and considered in our prior decision and fails to show any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of prior decision. DECISION Gunnison Consulting Group, Inc. (Gunnison), a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Gunnison Consulting Grp., Inc., B-418876 et al., Oct. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 344, denying its protest alleging that the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Bureau), unreasonably issued a task order to Octo Metric LLC, a small business located in Atlanta, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 20341420R00001 for development operations (DevOps) and software development services.  Gunnison argues that our decision contained legal errors with regard to our analysis of the agency’s evaluation of relevant experience. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The agency contemplated a five-phase procurement process resulting in the issuance of a hybrid task order with cost-plus-award-fee, labor-hour, and fixed-price contract line items.  Gunnison Consulting Grp., Inc., B-418876 et al., Oct. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 344 at 2.  The five phases were as follows:  (1) opt-in, (2) pre-proposal conference, (3) relevant experience, (4) proposal submission, and (5) technical challenge.  On December 19, 2019, as part of phase one, the Bureau provided notice to holders of the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC) Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) Small Business (SB) governmentwide acquisition contract of a requirement to provide DevOps and software development services for the Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.  In phase three, the Bureau invited offerors to submit relevant experience information, including narratives based on instructions provided by the agency.  Id. The RFP, issued after the agency evaluated offerors’ relevant experience information, anticipated the evaluation of the following non-cost factors, in descending order of importance:  relevant experience, technical approach, past performance, and technical challenge.  Id.  The non-cost factors, when combined, were equal in importance to the cost factor.  The solicitation anticipated the selection of the most advantageous offeror using the fair opportunity guidelines of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. With respect to the evaluation of relevant experience, the agency’s instructions contemplated assessing relevant experience narratives for at least three contracts and/or task orders for each offeror.  Id.  The instructions stated: If the Offeror is utilizing Major Subcontractors and/or Teaming Partners in its proposal, at least one (1) of the examples of the relevant experience provided shall be that of each Major Subcontractor and/or Teaming Partner and at least one (1) example shall be that of the Prime Contractor.  A Prime Contractor is defined as an Offeror who listed as a vendor on the NITAAC, NIH CIO-SP3 SB contract.  An Offeror’s Major Subcontractor and/or Teaming Partner is defined as one which is expected to perform 20 [percent] or more of the work on this task order.  Id.