Program Insite, LLC (91990021R0010)

B-419646 Jun 02, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Program Insite, LLC, a small business of Olney, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 91990021R0010, issued by the Department of Education (DOE) for cloud hosting, system administration, and website support and development. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and improperly excluded it from the competitive range. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Program Insite, LLC File:  B-419646 Date:  June 2, 2021 Emnet Menyahil, for the protester. Megan Nathan, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably assigned a deficiency to the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation of the proposal was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2.  Challenge to the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the agency reasonably found that the proposal was technically unacceptable as submitted, was not among the most highly rated, and did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. DECISION Program Insite, LLC, a small business of Olney, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 91990021R0010, issued by the Department of Education (DOE) for cloud hosting, system administration, and website support and development.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and improperly excluded it from the competitive range.[1] We deny the protest. Background On January 15, 2021, DOE issued the RFP in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contracting by negotiation.  Agency Report (AR), Tab E, RFP at 1, 98;[2] see also AR, Tab A, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at ¶ 8.  The RFP’s statement of work (SOW) described the following four tasks:  (1) access to Amazon Web Services, Infrastructure‑as‑a‑Service (IaaS); (2) system operations support; (3) website administration and development; and (4) software licenses.  RFP at 43.  Proposals were due by February 15.  Id. at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a single contract with both fixed‑price and cost‑reimbursement contract line items, for a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods.  Id. at 2‑4; 43‑44, 113.  Award was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering cost and price, and the following five technical factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach; (2) proposed project staff; (3) organizational capacity and resources; (4) management plan; and (5) past performance.  Id. at 113.  Technical merit was considered significantly more important than cost and price.  Id.  The RFP explained that the agency could assess attributes of proposals with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.  Id. at 116.  Relevant to the protest, the RFP defined a deficiency as follows: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal, that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance at an unacceptable level. Id.  The RFP advised that each technical factor would be assigned an adjectival rating‑‑either superior, satisfactory, marginal, or unacceptable[3]--in order to assign proposals an overall technical rating.  Id. at 115.  Proposals could be rated one of three possible overall technical ratings:  technically unacceptable; technically unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable; or technically acceptable.  Id. at 115‑116.  The solicitation also explained that proposals would be assigned a risk rating of high risk, moderate risk, or low risk.  Id. at 116. DOE received multiple proposals in response to the RFP, including a proposal from Program Insite.  COS at ¶ 32.  To evaluate proposals, the agency convened a technical evaluation panel (TEP) consisting of three members.  Id. at ¶ 34.  The contracting officer, who was not a member of the TEP, served as the source selection authority.  AR, Tab C, Source Selection Plan at 1. Program Insite’s proposal was assigned the following ratings under the RFP’s individual evaluation factors:    TEP Consensus Rating Technical Approach Marginal Proposed Project Staff Unacceptable Organizational Capacity Satisfactory Management Plan Satisfactory Past Performance Satisfactory   AR, Tab H, TEP Consensus Report at 2‑4.  Relevant here, under the proposed project staff factor, the TEP assigned Program Insite’s proposal two strengths, five weaknesses, five significant weaknesses, two deficiencies, and one risk.  Id. at 3‑4.