A P Ventures, LLC (70CTD021R00000002)

B-420133.5 Mar 11, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A P Ventures, LLC (APV), of Columbia, Maryland, asks that we reconsider our decision in Insight Tech. Sols., Inc., B-420133.2 et al., Dec. 20, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 13. In that decision, we sustained Insight's protest challenging the issuance of a task order to APV pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 70CTD021R00000002. The FOPR was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for information technology (IT) support services for the agency's student and exchange visitor program (SEVP). APV argues that our decision was based on factual and legal errors, and asserts that new information warrants reversal of the decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Matter of:  A P Ventures, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-420133.5 Date:  March 11, 2022 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the requester. Andrew M. Wagner, Esq., and Javier A. Farfan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the requesting party fails to demonstrate that our decision contains errors of fact or law, and fails to present new information not previously considered that would warrant reversal or modification of our prior decision. DECISION A P Ventures, LLC (APV), of Columbia, Maryland, asks that we reconsider our decision in Insight Tech. Sols., Inc., B-420133.2 et al., Dec. 20, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 13.  In that decision, we sustained Insight’s protest challenging the issuance of a task order to APV pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 70CTD021R00000002.  The FOPR was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for information technology (IT) support services for the agency’s student and exchange visitor program (SEVP).  APV argues that our decision was based on factual and legal errors, and asserts that new information warrants reversal of the decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2021, the agency issued the FOPR to firms holding contracts under the National Institutes of Health’s chief information officer-solutions and partners 3 (CIO‑SP3) small business governmentwide acquisition contract.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The FOPR contemplated the issuance of a task order on a best‑value tradeoff basis, for a potential total of 36 months, to provide IT services in support of the agency’s student and exchange visitor information system (SEVIS) application.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, FOPR at 1-2.[1] The FOPR provided that the agency would make its source selection decision using a tradeoff analysis considering the following four evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach; (2) experience; (3) management approach; and (4) price.  Id. at 15. The solicitation stated that minimum qualifications for key personnel were listed in the performance work statement (PWS).  Id. at 10.  The PWS identified six key personnel, including a project operations manager.  AR, Tab 7, PWS at 7-13.  Among other requirements, the project operations manager was to “have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in managing projects, with a focus on business process and re‑engineering projects.”  PWS at 9.  Under the management approach factor, while the FOPR did not require the submission of resumes for proposed key personnel, it did require offerors to “clearly identify” qualifications and to identify any “unique qualifications or experience proposed that exceed the minimum qualifications.”  FOPR at 10.  The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate whether proposed “qualifications . . . are reasonable for successfully and efficiently performing the work.”  Id.