Open SAN Consulting, LLC- dba OSC Edge (M95494-22-R-3001)

B-420724 Aug 05, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Support Services, Inc. (USS), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. M95494-22-R-3001, issued by the Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) for information technology support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. 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: United Support Services, Inc. File: B-420724 Date: August 5, 2022 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. John McHugh, Esq., and Amanda Belanger, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal and its exclusion from the competition is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. DECISION United Support Services, Inc. (USS), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. M95494-22-R-3001, issued by the Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) for information technology support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 7, 2022, the USMC issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.505, as a set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP Sections A-M, and attachments A, B, and L-1 (RFP) at 1 and 26.[1] The RFP was issued to holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) contract, a multiple award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.[2] Id. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order with a 5-year ordering period and a 6-month option period. Id. at 5 and 10. The solicitation stated that that the agency intends to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value. Id. at 38. The solicitation instructed offerors of the following: The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating of the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply re-phrase or re-state the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the Offeror will provide a particular feature or objective without explaining how the Offeror proposes to meet that feature or objective are generally inadequate and may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror. Id. at 28. The solicitation went onto state that offerors shall assume the government “has no prior knowledge” of their capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in each offeror’s proposal. Id. The RFP provided for a three-phased evaluation. Id. at 38. The solicitation instructed offerors to submit information for “Gate Criteria: Technical Experience (Acceptable/Unacceptable)” in its volume I: gate criteria proposal submission, which could not exceed nine pages. Id. at 29. Offerors were to complete an attached corporate experience form (attachment L-1) by providing up to, but not more than, three contracts performed within the past five years from the date the solicitation was released. Id. The solicitation instructions explained that the offeror’s corporate experience form should demonstrate how its proposed team has experience performing six services, including: * * * * d. Perform Business Intelligence (BI) development to analyze, develop, consolidate, optimize, and secure existing and new data processes and reporting capabilities utilizing common business intelligence toolsets; * * * * f. Provide services to an enterprise network consisting of at least six (6) web-based systems which supported a minimum of 4,000 concurrent users. Id. at 30. The agency would assess proposals under the “Gate Criteria” factor as either acceptable or unacceptable based on whether proposals met the minimum requirements for technical experience. The solicitation stated that an offeror would be considered acceptable if “the cumulative experience” of its three corporate experience references demonstrated performance of the six services identified in the evaluation criteria for the factor. Id. at 39.