Probity Inc. (2021-20110900001S)

B-420210 Dec 21, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Probity, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Peraton, Inc., also of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2021-20110900001S, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for data management services. Probity argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that one its proposed key personnel did not meet the solicitation's experience requirements, resulting in the improper rejection of its proposal as ineligible for award. 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: Probity, Inc. File: B-420210 Date: December 21, 2021 Kevin T. Carroll, Esq., John M. Doroghazi, Esq., and Sarah E. York, Esq., Wiggin & Dana, LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Christopher Griesedieck, Esq., Rebecca Pearson, Esq., and Taylor Hillman, Esq., Venable LLP, for Peraton, Inc., the intervenor. Dana Koffman, Esq., and Ashley Powers, Esq., Central Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s challenge of its unacceptable rating is denied where agency reasonably found that one of the protester’s proposed key personnel did not meet solicitation’s experience requirements. DECISION Probity, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Peraton, Inc., also of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2021-20110900001S, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for data management services. Probity argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that one its proposed key personnel did not meet the solicitation’s experience requirements, resulting in the improper rejection of its proposal as ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP seeks a contractor to manage data collected for intelligence reporting. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1 (citing Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1).[1] The solicitation anticipated award of a contract for a base year with four 12-month options. Protest, exh. A, Notice of Competition Results at 1. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: technical; management; past performance; security; and cost/price. Protest at 3 (quoting RFP). As relevant here, the solicitation provided for the evaluation of key personnel under a subfactor of the management factor. The solicitation’s statement of work (SOW) identified five key personnel positions, including a feeds team lead. Intervenor’s Comments at 3-4 (citing Agency Report (AR), Tab 24, SOW at 22; AR Tab 26, RFP § M at 3). For each position, the SOW identified the position’s required qualifications. Intervenor’s Comments at 4 (citing SOW at 38). The RFP instructed offerors to submit resumes for the candidates proposed for these positions and provided that the agency would evaluate the resumes to determine whether they “possess the relevant qualifications and experience to meet the requirements specified in [the] SOW[.]” Intervenor’s Comments at 3 (quoting AR, Tab 26, RFP § M at 4). The agency received proposals from six offerors, including Probity and Peraton. Protest, exh. 1, Notice of Competition Results. In evaluating Probity’s proposed key personnel under the management factor, the technical and management evaluation team (TMET) found that one of Probity’s key personnel--the “feeds team lead”‑‑did not demonstrate “experience defining [DELETED] workflows” as required by the solicitation.[2] MOL at 5 (citing COS at 9-10). The TMET thus assessed Probity’s proposal with a deficiency under this subfactor, resulting in an overall unacceptable rating for the management factor and finding that Probity’s proposal was ineligible for award. Id. The agency concluded that Peraton’s proposal provided the best value to the government and awarded the contract to Peraton. Protest, exh. 1, Notice of Competition Results. The total contract value was $[DELETED]. Id. On September 13, 2021, the agency notified Probity that its proposal had not been selected for award. Id. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Probity timely filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Probity challenges the deficiency assigned to its proposal under the key personnel subfactor of the management factor.[3] The protester argues that the agency’s assessment of the deficiency was based on an incorrect conclusion that Probity’s candidate for the feed teams lead position did not meet one of the solicitation’s minimum required qualifications.