ProSync Technology Group, LLC (15JPSS22Q00000034)

B-420824,B-420824.2 Sep 02, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ProSync Technology Group, LLC, a small business of Ellicott City, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15JPSS22Q00000034, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), for services and software to support DOJ's Personnel Security Group in replacing the Justice Security Tracking and Adjudication Record System (JSTARS). The protester contends the agency unreasonably determined that its quotation was unacceptable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: ProSync Technology Group, LLC File: B-420824; B-420824.2 Date: September 2, 2022 Paul W. Kim, Esq., Sung Hwang & Kim, LLP, for the protester. Gordon R. Jimison, Esq., and John J. Bowers, Esq., Department of Justice, 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 1. Protest challenging the agency’s conclusion that protester’s quotation was unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging the agency unreasonably failed to disclose information material to the preparation of a quotation is dismissed where the protest ground was raised more than 10 days after the protester should have known the basis for its protest. DECISION ProSync Technology Group, LLC, a small business of Ellicott City, Maryland, protests the evaluation of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15JPSS22Q00000034, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), for services and software to support DOJ’s Personnel Security Group in replacing the Justice Security Tracking and Adjudication Record System (JSTARS). The protester contends the agency unreasonably determined that its quotation was unacceptable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND JSTARS serves as DOJ’s personnel security system by, among other things, electronically storing documents, automating workflow, providing oversight of cases, and tracking clearance information for personnel. Agency Report (AR), Tab A.2, RFQ at 18.[1] According to the agency, JSTARS is currently hosted on an outdated version of an application development platform known as Entellitrak; DOJ is seeking a vendor to replace JSTARS with a new security tracking and adjudication system supported on the latest version of Entellitrak or equal platform. Id. To achieve that end, the agency issued the RFQ on March 3, 2022, as a small business set-aside under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule 70, Information Technology Professional Services in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation section 8.405. RFQ at 2, 11. The agency sought to issue a task order for a base period, with two 1-year option periods.[2] Id. at 30. The due date for quotations, as amended, was March 29, 2022.[3] COS/MOL at 3; AR, Tab A.14, amend. 0005 at 1. The RFQ provided for the evaluation of quotations under the following evaluation factors: project plan, past performance, and price. RFQ at 11. For project plan, the agency would evaluate the ability of the vendor’s proposed software solution to meet the brand name or equal requirements for Entellitrak, such as the ability to migrate the existing JSTARS data and documents into the new application.[4] Id. at 7‑8, 11. For past performance, the agency would evaluate up to three previous contracts that were recent and relevant to the work required by this RFQ.[5] Id. at 8. For price, the agency would conduct a price reasonableness analysis. Id. at 9. The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis where the project plan was more important than past performance, and when combined, the non-price evaluation factors were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency received three quotations, including one from ProSync. COS/MOL at 3. The final evaluation results for ProSync’s quotation were as follows:   ProSync Project Plan Unacceptable Past Performance Limited Confidence Price $10,874,358 AR, Tab G, Award Decision Document at 2. In its report, the technical evaluation team (TET) concluded that ProSync’s quotation, although containing some positive areas that earned strengths, was ultimately unacceptable because of its “upgrade approach” to JSTARS. AR, Tab C, Evaluation Report at 3‑4. The TET found that ProSync’s plan to upgrade Entellitrak and then migrate JSTARS to a new cloud environment was a major weakness and risk because, in essence, it was an upgrade to JSTARS. Id. at 3.