Octo Consulting Group, Inc. (HM0476-21-R-0036)

B-420988,B-420988.2 Nov 30, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Octo Consulting Group, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. M0476-21-R-0036, issued by the Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), for geospatial-intelligence search and retrieval (GSR) services. The protester argues that NGA misevaluated Octo's proposal and made an unreasonable competitive range determination. 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: Octo Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-420988; B-420988.2 Date: November 30, 2022 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Mark B. Grebel, Esq., and Kenneth W. Sachs, Esq., National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest of agency’s price evaluation is denied where protester has not shown that the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation or applicable regulations. 3. Protest that agency failed to meaningfully consider all evaluation factors when establishing competitive range is denied where the record reflects that agency’s competitive range determination was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Octo Consulting Group, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. M0476-21-R-0036, issued by the Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), for geospatial-intelligence search and retrieval (GSR) services. The protester argues that NGA misevaluated Octo’s proposal and made an unreasonable competitive range determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 15, 2021, the agency issued the solicitation to obtain support services for NGA’s GSR information technology (IT) system. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1.a, RFP at 2.[1] Under the RFP, the selected contractor would be required to maintain, support, and enhance NGA’s current GSR IT system, as well as develop new capabilities for the system. AR, Tab A.2.b, RFP attach. J‑01, Statement of Work (SOW) at 5. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with an ordering period of five years and a maximum contract value of $88,247,500. RFP at 5. The solicitation provided that award would be made to a responsible offeror on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following six factors: (1) technical/management; (2) past performance; (3) security; (4) small business participation; (5) intellectual property; and (6) price. Id. at 24, 26. The technical/management factor was comprised of three subfactors in decreasing levels of importance: overall technical approach; agile development management plan; and overall management approach. Id. at 26. With respect to the relative importance of the various factors, the RFP stated that the technical/management factor was significantly more important than past performance, which was more important than small business participation, which was more important than intellectual property. Id. The security factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and the RFP advised that a proposal that receives a rating of fail for the security factor will not be considered for award. Id. at 27. The non‑price factors when combined, except security, were significantly more important than price. Id. The RFP informed offerors that if the government determines that discussions are in its best interest, it will make a competitive range determination in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.306(c). Id. at 25. The competitive range would only include those proposals that are most highly rated after initial evaluation. Id. The agency received eight proposals in response to the solicitation, including one from Octo. AR, Tab D.1, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Consolidated Evaluation Report at 3‑4. Following initial evaluations, the agency concluded that discussions were necessary to obtain the best value for the government. The agency therefore established a competitive range of the two highest rated proposals. AR, Tab E.1, Competitive Range Determination at 7.