Alternate Perspectives, Inc. (1605JW-21-R-00015)

B-420613,B-420613.2 Jun 28, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alternate Perspectives, Inc., a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Human Learning Systems, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JW-21-R-00015, issued by the Department of Labor for the operation and management of the Shreveport Job Corps Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in an improper 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: Alternate Perspectives, Inc. File: B-420613; B-420613.2 Date: June 28, 2022 Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Rhina Cardenal, Esq., Cordatis LLP, and Susan R. Salen, Esq., Rees Broome PC, for the protester. Jose Otero, Esq., and Christopher L. Sanders, Esq., Department of Labor, 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 Alternate Perspectives, Inc., a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Human Learning Systems, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JW-21-R-00015, issued by the Department of Labor for the operation and management of the Shreveport Job Corps Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in an improper award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 18, 2021, the agency issued the RFP as a set-aside for small businesses in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation part 19. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1a, RFP at 1‑2.[1] The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment for a base period of two years, and three 1-year option periods. RFP at 5‑8. The due date for proposals, as amended, was December 28, 2021. AR, Exh. 2, RFP amend. 0001 at 1.[2] The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals under the following evaluation factors: technical approach, past performance, staff resources, price, and phase-in and phase-out plans. RFP at 92. For technical approach, offerors were to address five areas at the Job Corps Center: career pathways, counseling placement and support, relationships with the community, safety and security, and outreach and admissions. Id. at 84-85. The agency would evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s strategies were likely to meet and exceed the requirements under this factor; whether they were tailored to operate in the context of the eligible population, and the local and regional market; and whether they were innovative, evidence-based, and feasible. Id. at 92. For past performance, offerors were required to identify relevant past or current projects, which the solicitation defined as projects with requirements similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements of the RFP.[3] Id. at 86. The RFP provided that the experience must be from the three years preceding the submission of proposals, and be of at least one year in duration. Id. In evaluating past performance, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate whether the projects met the RFP’s definition of relevancy, and the quality and effectiveness of those projects. Id. at 93. The RFP further provided that the agency would not permit offerors to provide their own description of the quality or effectiveness of prior performance; instead, the agency would rely on Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, and other outside sources of data, to conduct the quality determination. Id. For staff resources, the RFP required offerors to respond to three subfactors: organizational and staffing charts; staff schedules; and corporate oversight and capacity. Id. at 87. The agency would evaluate the degree to which the offeror proposed: (1) appropriate staffing levels and labor categories; (2) staff in sufficient numbers and at the appropriate times to provide coverage; and (3) corporate resources committed to successful performance. Id. at 94. For price, the agency would conduct a price analysis to determine whether the proposed price was fair and reasonable. For the phase-in and phase-out plans, offerors were to provide the time and staff required for each phase, and the major steps the offeror sought to accomplish. Id. at 90. The agency would evaluate the phase-in and phase-out plans on a pass/fail basis, considering whether the plans included tasks and resources needed to accomplish a timely and successful transition. Id.