Omnitec Solutions, Inc. (C-84561-O)

B-419675.2,B-419675.3,B-419675.4 Oct 14, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Omnitec Solutions, Inc., a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to OnPoint Consulting, Inc., a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. C-84561-O issued pursuant to the Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners (CIO-SP3) governmentwide acquisition contract by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Addiction, for information technology services. The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and in conducting 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Omnitec Solutions, Inc. File:  B-419675.2; B-419675.3; B-419675.4 Date:  October 14, 2021 Richard J. Conway, Esq., Albert B. Krachman, Esq., Michael J. Slattery, Esq., and Oliver E. Jury, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Christine C. Fries, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for OnPoint Consulting, Inc., the intervenor. Kevin Misener, Esq., William Shim, Esq., and Anastasia Hautanen, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Omnitec Solutions, Inc., a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to OnPoint Consulting, Inc., a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. C‑84561-O issued pursuant to the Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners (CIO-SP3) governmentwide acquisition contract by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Addiction, for information technology services.  The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals and in conducting its best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on October 14, 2020, seeking information technology services in support of the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA).  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The NDA program includes a database of research as well as client software used to access the data.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.  The NDA houses data submitted by over one thousand research laboratories concerning more than half a million research subjects.  Id. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single time-and-materials task order with a 12‑month base period and two, 12-month option periods.  AR, exh. 3, Tab A, RFP at 1.  The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff among the following factors:  (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) subcontracting approach; and (4) price.  Id. at 10, 13.  The RFP also identified the following technical sub-factors in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; (3) corporate experience; and (4) personnel qualifications.  Id.  The RFP provided that the technical factor, as a whole, was more important than all other factors.  Id.  Only the technical factor and its associated subfactors are relevant to the issues presented in this protest. As to the technical factor, the RFP provided instructions to offerors that their technical narratives should demonstrate:  (1) ability to accomplish the tasks and requirements in all performance areas of the statement of work (SOW); (2) ability to meet performance/ delivery schedules under the required tasks; (3) a comprehensive understanding of the project’s goals, objectives, and tasks as called for in the SOW; (4) a thorough background discussion of the work contemplated under this project; and (5) an understanding of the tasks to be performed, and their interrelation and complexity.  Id. at 4. Following the submission of proposals, the agency convened a technical evaluation panel (TEP), evaluated proposals, and ultimately made award to OnPoint in March of 2021.  COS at 2.  Omnitec filed a protest with our Office challenging this award, and we subsequently dismissed the protest as academic based on the agency’s representation that it would reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision.  Omnitec Solutions, Inc., B‑419675.1, Apr.