Gritter Francona, Inc. (HT001120R0003)

B-420140.2,B-420140.4 Dec 22, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gritter Francona, Inc. (GFI), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to GC Associates, LLC (GCA), a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001120R0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency (DHA), for program management support. The protester asserts that the agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of proposals and improperly awarded the contract on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. 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:  Gritter Francona, Inc. File:  B-420140.2; B-420140.4 Date:  December 22, 2021 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., and David Timm, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Maria L. Panichelli, Esq., Karen L. Douglas, Esq., and Evan P. Kramer, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for GC Associates, LLC, the intervenor. Bradley Richardson, Esq., and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest objecting to agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated the proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest challenging source selection authority’s upgrade of awardee’s past performance rating is dismissed as untimely where the protester waited more than 10 days after it knew, or should have known, its basis for protest to raise this argument. DECISION Gritter Francona, Inc. (GFI), a small business located in Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to GC Associates, LLC (GCA), a small business located in Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001120R0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency (DHA), for program management support.  The protester asserts that the agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of proposals and improperly awarded the contract on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2020, DHA issued the solicitation seeking program management support for the Director of DHA and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Services and Policy Oversight, as well as administrative and records management support for DHA’s Arlington, Virginia office.  The RFP anticipated the award of a contract on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 57.  Under the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, the technical evaluation factor was more important than past performance.  Id.  In addition, both non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id.  The solicitation provided that as the range of technical merit narrows, the price factor would become more significant.  Id. The technical factor was comprised of five subfactors:  technical approach, key personnel, transition plan, quality control approach, and limitation on subcontracting.  Id. at 59-60. The technical approach subfactor was to be evaluated with an adjectival rating (outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable), while the other subfactors were to be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable.  AR, Tab 36, RFP amend. 3 at 14-17.  The evaluation of the technical approach subfactor would consider the adequacy of the workforce size, in terms of labor hours and the adequacy of the workforce skill mix to perform the full scope of work described in the performance work statement.  Id. at 14.  The evaluation would also consider the degree to which the offeror’s technical approach demonstrates an understanding of, and the capability to perform, certain program management requirements.  Id. at 14-15. The RFP contemplated that the agency would make its tradeoff by first comparing offerors under the technical approach subfactor (assuming the proposals being compared were rated acceptable under the other subfactors), the past performance factor, and price.  Id.