Optimize Consulting, Inc. (SP4703-20-R-0002)

B-419212.2 Feb 25, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Optimize Consulting, Inc., of Palatka, Florida, requests that our Office recommend that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) reimburse the firm the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to VC Solutions JV, LLC, of Lutz, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4703-20-R-0002, issued by the DLA, for continuous process improvement (CPI) deployment; growth and sustainment; and coaching and execution of CPI project support services. Optimize argues that reimbursement is warranted because the agency's actions in the face of a clearly meritorious protest ground were unreasonable and caused the firm to expend substantial investment of time and resources pursuing its protest. We dismiss the request. 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:  Optimize Consulting, Inc.--Costs File:  B-419212.2 Date:  February 25, 2021 Lee Dougherty, Esq., Effectus, PLLC, for the requester. Elan Taylor, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed after our Office dismissed a protest as premature in light of an ongoing investigation into the allegation of an organizational conflict of interest is dismissed where the agency did not take corrective action in the prior protest.  DECISION Optimize Consulting, Inc., of Palatka, Florida, requests that our Office recommend that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) reimburse the firm the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to VC Solutions JV, LLC, of Lutz, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4703-20-R-0002, issued by the DLA, for continuous process improvement (CPI) deployment; growth and sustainment; and coaching and execution of CPI project support services.  Optimize argues that reimbursement is warranted because the agency’s actions in the face of a clearly meritorious protest ground were unreasonable and caused the firm to expend substantial investment of time and resources pursuing its protest. We dismiss the request. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on May 6, 2020, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, was set aside for 8(a) small businesses and sought support services for CPI deployment; growth and sustainment at the enterprise and organizational levels; and coaching and execution of CPI projects at all levels.  Agency Report (AR), exh. B, Final Amended RFP at 3.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 2.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical approach, key personnel, management approach, and past performance.  Id. at 70.  The non-price factors, when combined were more important than price.  Id. On September 28, Optimize filed a protest with our Office challenging the award of a contract to VC Solutions.[2]  The protest was docketed as B-419212.1.  Optimize argued that a substantial unequal access to information organizational conflict of interest (OCI) “permeated” VC Solutions’s proposal.  Protest at 10-11.  Specifically, Optimize alleged that one of the awardee’s joint venture (JV) members, Calibre, had access to proposals submitted to the agency for over five years as a result of performing on a support services contract for DLA’s acquisition office.[3]  Id.  In support of this argument, Optimize provided a declaration from its chief executive officer (CEO) who stated that in 2015 two former and/or current Calibre employees that provided support to the acquisition office “bragged” about seeing competitive bids that came through the acquisition office.  Id., exh. 2, Decl. of Optimize CEO.  In its protest, Optimize also challenged the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical approach, management approach, and past performance evaluation factors.  Id. at 12‑13. On October 1, the agency notified our Office that, in response to the protest, DLA had issued a stop work order and initiated an investigation into Optimize’s OCI allegation; the results of which, the agency explained, could affect the award decision.  Agency Oct.