Management & Training Corporation (1605JE-21-R-00007)

B-420568,B-420568.2 May 10, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Management and Training Corporation (MTC) of Centerville, Utah, protests the award of a contract to Odle Management Group, LLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JE-21-R-00007, issued by the Department of Labor for operation of the Turner Job Corps Center in Albany, Georgia. MTC alleges that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection 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: Management & Training Corporation File: B-420568; B-420568.2 Date: May 10, 2022 Alex P. Hontos, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, for the protester. John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., William B. O’Reilly, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Jacob A. Harrison, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Odle Management Group, LLC, an intervenor. Jose Otero, Esq., Jonathan Pomerance, Esq., and Robert Proudfoot, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record shows agency’s actions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Management and Training Corporation (MTC) of Centerville, Utah, protests the award of a contract to Odle Management Group, LLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JE-21-R-00007, issued by the Department of Labor for operation of the Turner Job Corps Center in Albany, Georgia. MTC alleges that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 2 years, three 1-year option periods, and a final 1-month phase-out period to perform the solicited services.[1] Firms were advised that the agency would consider price and several non-price factors in making its award determination. The RFP included the following evaluation factors in descending importance: technical approach, past performance, staff resources, and price, and specified that the non-price considerations in combination were significantly more important than price.[2] RFP at 85‑88. In addition, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate prices to determine whether they were fair and reasonable. RFP at 87. In response to the RFP, the agency received a number of proposals, including those submitted by MTC and Odle. The agency evaluated proposals and, on the basis of that evaluation, assigned the following ratings to the proposals submitted by the protester and Odle:[3]   MTC Odle Technical Approach Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Satisfactory/Moderate Satisfactory/Moderate Staff Resources Acceptable Acceptable Phase-In/Phase-Out Pass Pass Price $121,899,636 $100,996,715   AR, Exh. 8, SSDD, at 7. Based on these evaluation results, the agency made award to Odle, finding that its proposal represented the best value to the government. Id. at 58‑66. After being advised of the agency’s source selection decision and requesting and receiving a debriefing, MTC filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION MTC’s protest is confined to a challenge of the agency’s past performance evaluation, as well as a challenge to the agency’s best-value source selection decision. MTC raised a number of additional allegations in the course of the protest, but we found that none of those assertions presented a cognizable basis for protest. Consequently, we advised the parties during the pendency of the protest that these issues would not be considered on the merits. We discuss these issues briefly below before turning to MTC’s challenge to the agency’s past performance evaluation and source selection decision. Preliminary Matters In its initial protest, MTC alleged that the agency improperly failed to perform either a cost realism or price realism evaluation of proposals. MTC also argued that, in evaluating the Odle proposal, the agency erred in failing to take into consideration a corporate transaction that had occurred between Odle and another concern. Odle filed a request for partial dismissal of these issues, arguing that they failed to state a basis for protest, and we agreed. Specifically, we concluded that the RFP did not contemplate the evaluation of prices for realism, and instead provided that the agency would only evaluate prices for reasonableness. RFP at 87.