Apprio, Inc. (70FA2022Q00000003)

B-420627 Jun 30, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Apprio, Inc., of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FA2022Q00000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for training services to be performed at the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) in Anniston, Alabama. The protester challenges the agency's cost realism evaluation of the awardee's proposal and the technical evaluation of the competing proposals. We sustain 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: Apprio, Inc. File: B-420627 Date: June 30, 2022 John E. Jensen, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Ariella M. Cassell, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, and James C. Fontana, Esq., and L. James D’Agostino, Esq., Fontana Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Allison M. Siegel, Esq., Venable LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Joseph H. Doyle, Esq., and Matthew Lane, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation is sustained where the record does not demonstrate that the agency assessed the awardee’s proposed direct labor rates or the awardee’s approach to rate escalation, and where the record shows that the agency employed a standard deviation methodology in an unreasonable manner. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal under the corporate experience factor is sustained where the record shows that the agency assessed an unreasonable weakness, and where the agency’s response to the protest was not supported by the contemporaneous record. 3. Challenge to the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the staffing plan and key personnel experience factor is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis of protest. DECISION Apprio, Inc., of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FA2022Q00000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for training services to be performed at the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) in Anniston, Alabama. The protester challenges the agency’s cost realism evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and the technical evaluation of the competing proposals.[1] We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND FEMA issued the RFQ on November 22, 2021, under the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505. Agency Report (AR), Tab AI, e‑Buy Notice at 1; AR, Tab J, RFQ at 1. The agency sought proposals from holders of the General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract. RFQ at 1. The awardee will be required to deliver training classes at CDP. AR, Tab K, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. CDP is a national training facility that prepares state and local emergency response personnel to respond to various hazards such as terrorist attacks by conducting hands‑on and classroom‑based training. Id. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a hybrid task order that includes both fixed‑price and cost‑plus‑award‑fee contract line items, with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 2‑6. Issuance of the task order was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering cost and price, and the following non‑price factors listed here in descending order of importance: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical and management plan; (3) staffing plan and key personnel; and (4) quality control plan. Id. at 59‑63. For purposes of award, the non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than cost and price. Id. at 59. The solicitation provided for a two‑phase evaluation. Id. at 49, 59. In phase one, interested offerors were invited to submit technical proposals addressing only the corporate experience factor. Id. at 49‑52. Phase one proposals would be rated as high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence. Id. at 49; AR, Tab M, Source Selection Plan (SSP) at 14. The agency would then issue “down‑select” notices to the participating offerors and invite phase two proposals from “viable competitor[s].”[2] RFQ at 49. Phase two proposals were to be submitted in two parts. Id. at 49‑50. The first part addressed the remaining non‑price evaluation factors. Id. at 52‑53.