Strategic Operational Solutions, Inc. (70SBUR21R00000025)

B-420159,B-420159.2,B-420159.3 Dec 17, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Operational Solutions (SOS), Inc., a small service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Sterling, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, by the Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, under Request for Proposals (RFP) 70SBUR21R00000025 issued pursuant to the National Institutes of Health's Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for network engineering and support services. The protester alleges that the awardee's proposal did not address material requirements of the solicitation, and the agency erred in conducting its best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  Strategic Operational Solutions, Inc. File:  B-420159; B-420159.2; B-420159.3 Date:  December 17, 2021 Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Laurel Hockey, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, the intervenor. John E. Cornell, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Strategic Operational Solutions (SOS), Inc., a small service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Sterling, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, by the Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, under Request for Proposals (RFP) 70SBUR21R00000025 issued pursuant to the National Institutes of Health’s Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for network engineering and support services.  The protester alleges that the awardee’s proposal did not address material requirements of the solicitation, and the agency erred in conducting its best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2021, the agency issued the RFP seeking support services for the agency’s technical operations center, which operates and maintains agency network infrastructure.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2.  The solicitation provided for a two-phased evaluation process.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 57-58.  In phase one, offerors were to submit short proposals responding to questions about their incident management experience.  Id.  The agency would then evaluate those submissions, and advise offerors whether the agency believed they were likely to be successful in the second phase of the procurement.  Id. In phase two, offerors submitted more detailed proposals, and made an oral presentation.  Id.  The RFP indicated award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff among four factors specific to phase two:  (1) oral presentation/technical challenge; (2) technical approach; (3) management approach; and (4) price.  RFP at 58, 66.  Relevant to this protest, the solicitation provided detailed requirements for the management approach submission.  Id. at 60-62, 64.  For example, the solicitation limited management approach submissions to ten pages, and required offerors to demonstrate, among other things, the “ability to provide a comprehensive management dashboard on incident management for reporting purposes.”  Id.  Additionally, the RFP included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) that identified functional requirements for certain positions, but did not mandate any specific CIO-SP3 labor categories for those positions.  See, e.g., RFP at 74.  The RFP also outlined mandatory qualifications for certain key personnel.  Id. at 94-95.  In this regard, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate “[a]n understanding of the requirement’s staffing needs (including Key Personnel qualification requirements) through its Staffing Mix and Narrative and how the staffing mix aligns with the offering contractor’s proposed technical approach.”  Id.