Octo Metric, LLC

B-419177 Dec 17, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Octo Metric, LLC, a small business of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) 832015480, issued under the National Institutes of Health's Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for information technology (IT) and network engineering and development. The protester contends that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Octo Metric, LLC File:  B-419177 Date:  December 17, 2020 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., David S. Cohen, Esq., Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, the intervenor. Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., and Vera A. Strebel, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, 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 Octo Metric, LLC, a small business of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) 832015480, issued under the National Institutes of Health’s Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for information technology (IT) and network engineering and development.  The protester contends that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on June 16, 2020, to all small business holders of the CIO-SP3 IDIQ contract.  Consolidated Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4.  The RFP provided that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between two evaluation factors:  (1) technical/management approach; and (2) price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 3-4.  Additionally, the technical/management factor was composed of three subfactors:  (1) program and project management support; (2) engineering, test, and development; and (3) architecture and design.  Id.  The RFP indicated that each of the technical subfactors would be given equal weight, but that the technical/management approach factor as a whole was more important than the price factor.  Id. at 3. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate each subfactor and assign strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies, and then assign one of the following ratings:  blue/outstanding, purple/good; green/acceptable; yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable.  AR, Tab 1.e, Evaluation Tables.  The RFP also provided that prices would be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness, and that prices may also be evaluated for realism.  RFP at 4. Furthermore, the RFP included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) that specified tasks to be performed under the task order, and the RFP’s instructions to offerors referenced specific sections of the PWS.  RFP at 3-4.  For example, the instructions for the “engineering, test, and development” technical subfactor indicated that offerors shall, among other things, “describe their methodology for providing new approaches to Engineering IT solutions, as required by PWS Section 6 Task 2.1.3.”  Id.