Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (140D0420R0017)

B-419040.3 May 21, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. (STGi), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D0420R0017, issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI), for training and technical assistance services. The protester contends that the awardee misrepresented the availability of its proposed key personnel, and should have been disqualified from the competition. The protester also contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, and the best-value determination was flawed. 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:  Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC File:  B-419040.3 Date:  May 21, 2021 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq.,Timothy F. Valley, Esq., and Christine C. Fries, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Craig A. Holman, Esq., Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., Trevor G. Schmitt, Esq., and Aime Joo, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for STG International, Inc., the intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that the awardee misrepresented the availability of its key personnel and should have been disqualified from the competition is denied where there is no evidence that the awardee misrepresented the availability of, or sought to replace, its key personnel. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s reevaluation of the protester’s proposal and new award decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to STG International, Inc. (STGi), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D0420R0017, issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI), for training and technical assistance services.  The protester contends that the awardee misrepresented the availability of its proposed key personnel, and should have been disqualified from the competition.  The protester also contends that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, and the best-value determination was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 10, 2020, using the negotiated contracting procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a contract in each of 12 regions established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start (OHS).[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 3.  The purpose of the contracts is to provide training and technical assistance to OHS grant recipients providing child development programs and services to economically disadvantaged children and families nationwide.  Id.  The anticipated period of performance for each contract is 59 months, consisting of an 11‑month base period and four 12-month option periods.  Id. at 41.  This protest relates solely to the contract awarded for region VIII, which includes Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.  Id. at 4. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  management approach; technical approach; past performance; and price.  Id. at 85.  The management approach factor included the following subfactors:  approach to implementation; personnel qualifications; and staffing plan.  Id.  The technical approach factor included the following subfactors:  organizational experience and capacity; quality control plan; and understanding the project and scope.  Id.  The RFP stated that the management approach and technical approach factors and subfactors would be evaluated to identify strengths and deficiencies, if any, and assigned the following ratings:  outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable.  Id. at 85-86.  The RFP further stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government utilizing a tradeoff process where the non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 85. The RFP identified the labor categories and number of personnel required for each region; for region VIII, the RFP identified nine labor categories to be filled by 19 required personnel.  Id.