Cognosante MVH, LLC (T4NG-0526)

B-418986,B-418986.2,B-418986.3 Nov 13, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cognosante MVH, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the Department of Veterans Affairs's (VA) issuance of a task order to SRA International, of Fairfax, Virginia, pursuant to solicitation number T4NG-0526 under the VA's Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for software development and information technology services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals, engaged in disparate treatment, and erred in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Cognosante MVH, LLC File:  B-418986; B-418986.2; B-418986.3 Date:  November 13, 2020 Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Kevin Massoudi, Esq., and Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester.  Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., and Umer M. Chaudhry, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for SRA International, the intervenor. Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., and Christopher Murphy, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Cognosante MVH, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the Department of Veterans Affairs’s (VA) issuance of a task order to SRA International, of Fairfax, Virginia, pursuant to solicitation number T4NG-0526 under the VA’s Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology Next Generation (T4NG) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for software development and information technology services.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals, engaged in disparate treatment, and erred in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 21, 2020, the agency issued the request for task execution plan (RTEP), seeking “test-driven” software development and information technology operations services.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RTEP contemplated the award of a single fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period, and two 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RTEP at 2,6; AR, Tab 5, Revised Price Schedule at 7,14.  Award was to be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between three evaluation factors:  (1) technical; (2) price; and (3) past performance.  RTEP at 3.  Technical was significantly more important than price, and price was slightly more important than past performance.  Id.  When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. Additionally, the agency’s internal source selection evaluation plan specified that proposals could be assigned significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies.  AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Evaluation Plan at 6.  Relevant to this protest, the evaluation plan defined a strength as “[a]ny aspect of a [proposal] when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, which enhances the merit of the [proposal] or increases the possibility of successful performance of the contract.”  Id.  Further, the evaluation plan provided that past performance would be evaluated using a composite point system with a maximum possible score of 20 points.  Id.  Offerors could receive up to 10 points for ratings received on their performance of previously awarded task orders, up to 5 points for meeting small business participation goals, and up to 5 points for meeting veteran employment goals.  Id. The agency received multiple offers, including offers from the protester and intervenor.  COS at 2.  The agency then established a competitive range and entered into discussions.  Id.  Following discussions, the agency evaluated the protester and intervenor as follows:   Cognosante SRA Technical Acceptable Outstanding Past Performance 16.6 9.4 Total Price $177,543,156.11 $200,925,999.91   AR, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 3. On July 28, the agency issued a task order to SRA on the basis that its technical superiority outweighed Cognosante’s price and past performance advantage.  COS at 2.  This protest followed.[1] DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency erred in its evaluation in several respects.  First, the protester contends that the agency erred...