Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC (342275)

B-419488.4 Jul 21, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC, a woman-owned small business of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 342275, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), for information technology services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated the proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC File:  B-419488.4 Date:  July 21, 2021 Jon D. Levin, Esq., and Emily Chancey, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester. Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, for Halvik, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Matthew W. Haynes, Esq., Major Allison K.W. Johnson, and Major Brian Shust, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the exclusion of protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  DECISION Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC, a woman-owned small business of Blacksburg, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 342275, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), for information technology services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated the proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on October 2, 2020, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 to holders of the Department of the Army’s Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) governmentwide multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a task order to provide enterprise knowledge management (EKM) operations support services[1] in multiple locations within USSOCOM.  AR, Tab 9, Instructions to Offerors at 1-2.  The solicitation advised that the task order would be performed over a 13-month base period with four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 2.  The solicitation was amended seven times; as relevant here, the second amendment included the final instructions to offerors and statement of work.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two evaluation factors; namely, a proposal’s task order management plan and its task order price plan, which were to be submitted in separate volumes.  AR, Tab 9, Instructions to Offerors at 2-3, 11.  The task order management plan was to be evaluated under three subfactors:  transition plan, staffing plan, and issue management and reporting.  Id. at 3‑5. As relevant here, under the transition plan subfactor, the solicitation required the following: 2.1.1:  Provide the schedule to achieve [f]ull [o]perational [c]apability (FOC) on time.  Include a timeline with milestones from proposal submission to FOC, covering at a minimum the milestones required by Table 2 in Section 6.2 of the SOW. AR, Tab 9, Instructions to Offerors at 4.  Table 2, addressing the requirements for transition planning, identified six milestones, two of which are relevant here.  SOW at 26.  The solicitation advised offerors, first, of a kickoff meeting with the agency, to take place “[n]o later than (NLT) one business day after start of transition period, [which begins on the date of award],” and second, of a requirement that incumbents and new hires be accepted into the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), a security clearance and access database, “NLT 25 calendar days after start of transition period.”  Id.  The RFP directed the successful contractor to attend the kickoff meeting, provide presentation materials, and document the meeting by keeping minutes.  Id.  The solicitation stated that the transition plan subfactor would be evaluated in the following manner: 3.1.1:  The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed milestones and timeline support SOW requirements for assumption of the work and achievement of [full operational capability].