TekSynap Corporation (1332KQ20RNEEA0003)

B-419862.4,B-419862.5,B-419862.6 Jul 12, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Alpha Omega Integration, LLC (AOI), of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1332KQ20RNEEA0003, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for operations and maintenance services. The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of technical proposals. 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: TekSynap Corporation File: B-419862.4; B-419862.5; B-419862.6 Date: July 12, 2022 Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Samarth Barot, Esq., and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Danielle R. Rich, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Alpha Omega Integration, LLC, the intervenor. Jeremiah Kline, Esq., and Rebecca Bailey Jacobsen, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Alpha Omega Integration, LLC (AOI), of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1332KQ20RNEEA0003, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for operations and maintenance services. The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP--a Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a)[1] set‑aside--was issued pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to firms holding Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts awarded by the National Institutes of Health. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Phase II RFP at 2. The RFP sought proposals to provide operations and maintenance support services for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) and the Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research headquarters systems. AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 4. at 69. [2] The contactor will be required to provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform enterprise information technology services requirements as defined in the performance work statement (PWS). Id. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price and time-and- materials task order, with a variable base period (dependent on the length of the transition) and four 1-year option periods. The solicitation provided for issuance of the task order to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering price and the following five technical factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical approach--help desk; corporate experience; technical approach--other; management plan, staffing plan, and key personnel; and past performance. Phase II RFP at 37-38. The phase I evaluation would consider the first two evaluation factors: technical approach--help desk and corporate experience.[3] Id. The phase II proposals would address the requirements for the remaining technical factors: technical approach--other; management plan, staffing plan, and key personnel; and past performance. Id. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would assess the proposals’ strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies and risks under the five non-price evaluation factors and would assign each of those factors “an adjectival rating that facilitates the best value award decision.” Id. The results of both phase I and phase II of the procurement would be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision, where the five non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 38-39. This protest concerns the agency’s evaluation of phase II proposals and the subsequent award decision. The protester and the intervenor were among six offerors to submit phase II proposals. See AR, Tab 13, Business Clearance Memorandum at 10-11.