Strategic Resources, Inc. (47QFCA20R0006)

B-419151 Dec 11, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFCA20R0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for military family-life counseling services. SRI alleges that the agency improperly conducted discussions, and unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Strategic Resources, Inc. File:  B-419151 Date:  December 11, 2020 Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unequally conducted discussions by issuing solicitation amendments during oral presentations is denied where the record shows the solicitation amendments were issued to allow the agency to better conduct its cost evaluation of previously submitted information, and the agency only asked clarifying questions during the oral presentations. 2.  Protest that the agency did not maintain a record of the oral presentations is denied where the record contains sufficient information demonstrating the content of the oral presentations. 3.  Protest that the agency unreasonably assigned a deficiency is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the firm’s technical proposal and the terms and conditions of the solicitation. DECISION Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFCA20R0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for military family-life counseling services.  SRI alleges that the agency improperly conducted discussions, and unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 19, 2020, GSA issued the RFP to procure non-medical counseling, consultation, outreach, management, and logistics support services to support the Department of Defense’s military and family-life counseling (MFLC) program.[1]  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 1, 31; see also Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.[2]  The RFP contemplated the award of two cost-plus-award-fee contracts to be performed over a 1‑year base period, and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 69.  The RFP anticipated that the two awards would each cover roughly one-half of the continental United States (i.e., one award covering east of the Mississippi River (eastern region), and the other award covering west of the Mississippi River (western region)).  Id. at 7. The RFP set forth five tasks that the selected contractor would be expected to perform:  Task 1, Program Management; Task 2, Transition-In and Transition-Out; Task 3, MFLC services; Task 4, On-Demand Services; and, Task 5, Surge Support Services.  AR, Tab 6, RFP, amend. 8 at 35.  The RFP set forth three additional optional tasks:  Task 6, Western Geographical Optional Footprint; Task 7, Eastern Geographical Optional Footprint; and, Task 8 Virtual Support Services.  Id.  Ultimately, the selected contractor was expected to maximize the availability and effectiveness of MFLC services.  Id. at 34-35. When responding to the solicitation, offerors were instructed to submit their proposals in four parts:  (1) preliminary cost/price proposals; (2) remainder of cost/price proposals; (3) written technical proposals; and (4) oral technical proposal presentation.[3]  RFP at 168.  The written technical proposal was required to describe the project staffing plan, key personnel, any technical assumptions, transition-in plan, past performance, as well as provide any oral technical proposal slides.  Id. at 179.  For the oral technical proposal presentation, offerors were instructed to discuss their key personnel and project staffing, as well as their technical and management approaches.  RFP at 186.  When describing their key personnel and project staffing, offerors were instructed to explain their rationale for selecting particular key personnel, rationale for projected staffing, and approach to hiring and retaining staff.  Id.  When describing their technical and management approaches, offerors were instructed to explain how they would satisfy contract requirements, management structure, program management, and processes for maintaining high quality work products.  Id.  Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering key personnel and project staffing, technical and management approach, past performance, and cost factors.  RFP at 188, 192.  When combined, the non-cost factors were significantly more important than cost.  Id.