F-2 Solutions (47QREB-20-R-0001)

B-418950 Oct 09, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Inalab Consulting, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QREB-20-R-0001--referred to as the Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) 8(a) solicitation--issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide training and development services across the federal government. Inalab contends that the agency's rejection of its proposal as noncompliant was improper. 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:  Inalab Consulting, Inc. File:  B-418950 Date:  October 9, 2020 Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Jason A. Blindauer, Esq., and Timothy F. Valley, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Kristen M. Nowadly, Esq., and Carol Latterman, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly rejected protester’s proposal is denied where agency reasonably determined that protester failed to submit specific documents showing execution of relevant experience project as required by the solicitation. 2.  Protest that agency improperly failed to waive a solicitation requirement as immaterial fails to state a valid basis for protest; waiver of a solicitation requirement, even if immaterial, is a discretionary action, and offerors have no entitlement to waiver. DECISION Inalab Consulting, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QREB-20-R-0001--referred to as the Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) 8(a) solicitation--issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide training and development services across the federal government.[1]  Inalab contends that the agency’s rejection of its proposal as noncompliant was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The HCaTS procurement was initiated in 2015, as a small business set-aside, and sought proposals for customized training and development services, customized human capital strategy services, and customized organizational performance improvement services.  Protest, attach. 1, RFP at 15-17;[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  HCaTS is comprised of two separate sets of government-wide multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, referred to as “pools” (based on different small business size standards), under which task orders can be issued.[3]  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The HCaTS 8(a) solicitation here was issued on November 27, 2019, pursuant to the procedures of FAR part 15, and sought to “on-ramp” additional contractors into two 8(a) pools.[4]  RFP at 8; MOL at 3.  The solicitation contemplated that the agency would award approximately 20 IDIQ contracts for each 8(a) pool for a 1-year base period with a 5-year option period.  RFP at 26, 88.  Awards were to be made to the offerors that submitted proposals that were the “Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Prices.”  Id. at 88. The RFP explained that the agency would conduct a multi-phased evaluation.  First, the agency would identify the top 40 proposals using the offeror's self-scoring worksheets.  Id. at 89.  Next, the agency would perform an initial screening of the top 40 proposals to determine whether the offeror provided all of the attachments and documents listed on the solicitation checklist.  Id. at 89-90.  If an offeror submitted all required attachments and documents, the agency would then validate the offeror’s self-scoring worksheet.  Id. at 90-91. The RFP instructed offerors to submit six relevant experience projects (REP) as part of their proposals.  Id. at 76.  For each REP, the solicitation required offerors to submit documentation to substantiate seven requirements:  (1) execution; (2) recency; (3) period of performance; (4) obligated dollar amount; (5) scope; (6) North American Industry Classification System code; and (7) past performance rating.  Id. at 77-79. Relevant to the protest here, the RFP stated that with regard to supporting documents generally, “[u]nless specifically prohibited, Offerors may provide whatever official, verifiable contractual documentation is necessary to substantiate any minimum requirements or claimed scoring elements; a verifiable contractual document can be the award document, contractual documents, and contractual deliverables, signed or certified and legally recognized documents.”  Id.