HeiTech-PAE, LLC (70SBUR21R00000009)

B-420049.9,B-420049.10 Jun 08, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HeiTech-PAE, LLC, of Landover, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to the Brillient Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR21R00000009, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for records operations services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision were improper. 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: HeiTech-PAE, LLC File: B-420049.9; B-420049.10 Date: June 8, 2022 Katherine B. Burrows, Esq. Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Terry L. Elling, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., and Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Brillient Corporation, the intervenor. Beth B. Sturgess, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s staffing proposal is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s post-corrective action evaluation because it was not reconciled with an earlier evaluation is denied because it lacks a factual and legal basis. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. DECISION HeiTech-PAE, LLC, of Landover, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to the Brillient Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR21R00000009, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for records operations services. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The USCIS, a component agency of DHS, administers lawful immigration to the United States as well as the U.S. naturalization process. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. Within USCIS, the mission of its National Benefits Center (NBC) is to support the centralization of immigration application pre-processing required for the agency’s 88 field offices. Id. As part of its mission, the USCIS requires records support to receive and process the fees associated with immigration applications and other petitions under the NBC’s jurisdiction. These requirements are reflected in the PWS of the “records operation contract” (ROC) solicitation here. Id. The RFP was issued on December 29, 2020, as a small business set-aside, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.[1] AR, Tab 5, RFP at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials contract for a 12-month base period with four 12-month options. RFP at 62, 153. The RFP established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on six evaluation factors: (1) facility clearance; (2) staffing recruitment and retention (recruitment and retention); (3) corporate experience; (4) management approach; (5) past performance; and (6) price. Id. at 71. The non-price factors were listed in descending order of importance and, when combined, were more important than price.[2] Id. The agency employed a multi-phase, advisory selection process to conduct the competition. In the first phase, the agency validated, on a pass/fail basis, whether the offeror possessed an active facility clearance at the secret level. In the next phase, offerors were evaluated on the recruitment and retention factor and the corporate experience factor, and informed of their competitive viability. The last phase involved the submission of proposals regarding the final three evaluation factors. RFP at 72-73; COS at 1-2. Six offerors, including Brillient and HeiTech-PAE submitted timely proposals. COS at 3. An agency technical evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated proposals under the recruitment and retention, corporate experience, and management approach factors, using an adjectival rating scheme that was set forth in the solicitation as follows: outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable. RFP at 76. An agency business evaluation committee (BEC) evaluated offerors’ past performance using a separate rating scheme: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, low confidence, or neutral. Id. at 77.