Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd. (N0042121R3007)

B-420512,B-420512.2 May 12, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, to Disk Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (DESI), a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland. The task order was issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042121R3007 for support services for the Navy's Digital Networks and Applications department. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. 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: Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd. File: B-420512; B-420512.2 Date: May 12, 2022 John R. Tolle, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Matthew G. Hjortsberg, Esq., and Lauren M. Upton, Esq., Bowie & Jensen, LLC, for Disk Enterprise Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Heather B. Norris, Esq., and Aldo Perez, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, to Disk Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (DESI), a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland. The task order was issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042121R3007 for support services for the Navy’s Digital Networks and Applications department. The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside on March 1, 2021, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 81. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order to a contract holder under the Navy’s Seaport NxG contract for base period of one year, with four 1‑year option periods and a 6-month option to extend services. COS/MOL at 4; RFP at 78. The due date for proposals, as amended, was April 14, 2021.[1] COS/MOL at 6‑7. The RFP provided for the submission of proposals in two volumes: technical and cost/price. RFP at 69. The technical volume was to address two elements: “Understanding of the Requirement” and key personnel. Id. at 69. The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis with technical factors “significantly more important” than cost/price. Id. at 81‑83. The technical understanding element was more important than key personnel. Id. Under the technical understanding element, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s technical approach, as well as its written narratives and response to a sample task, to determine the offeror’s understanding of the services, ability to meet the requirements, and whether its methodology met or exceeded the requirements provided in the statement of work (SOW). Id. at 82. Under the key personnel element, offerors were to demonstrate that their proposed key personnel (1) met the labor category (LCAT) descriptions in the SOW, (2) held the required certifications, (3) possessed the required security clearance, and (4) submitted a signed letter of commitment. To determine whether the proposed personnel met the minimum qualifications for the LCAT for which they were proposed, the agency would evaluate resumes on a pass/fail basis.[2] Id. at 83. If the proposed individual met the minimum qualifications, the agency would assess the relevancy of the individual’s experience to the requirements. Id. The evaluators assigned a relevancy of experience finding if a resume provided benefits that exceeded the RFP requirements. AR, Exh. 9, Technical Team Response to Protest Allegation at 6. The solicitation provided the agency would assign proposals an overall technical rating of good, acceptable, or unacceptable based on the agency’s “assessment of each offeror’s submission including any evaluated positive and negative findings.”[3] RFP at 83‑84. The RFP defined a “positive finding” as a finding that provided merit/benefit to the agency or favorably demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or associated risk to performance, whereas a “negative finding” meant a finding that unfavorably impacted the understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or associated risk to performance. Id.